Moose408 wrote in post #11970612
I was asked this past week to shoot for Suicide Girls which is soft porn, but still porn. Of course I won't make any money off of it, so I'm still debating whether to do it.
The problem is the release you will have to sign to submit those photos. It is one of the worst in the business.
Here's a little informational I wrote up (providing of course SG hasn't suddenly changed their release wording):
Ok folks, for those of you Photographers who know what "suicide girls" are and thinking of taking someone's submission photos for them.
Suicide Girls has probably one of the nastiest rights grabs releases that photographer could sign, ever.
By signing it you give away ALL of your rights, that includes copyright, to SG. Here it is:
Without reservation or limitation, Photographer hereby irrevocably transfers, sells, assigns, delivers and conveys to SG all rights, title and interest in and to the Photos as of the moment of the Photos creation and all rights, title and interest in and to the Photos in any format (e.g., paper or electronic) and all corresponding negatives or other component parts, whether or not delivered to SG. Photographer also grants SG its affiliates, agents, successors, licensees and assigns a worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free, irrevocable, fully paid up right and license to use Photographer’s name in connection with any Photos. No rights of any kind are reserved to or by Photographer or shall revert to Photographer who expressly waives any rights of attribution or integrity.
For this you get a whopping 3 months of subscription to their website! Woot! Woot! ... NOT.
Now that alone isn't so bad if you figure: "meh what the heck, I get a few bucks for the session, and I don't care about having any rights to the photos as long as I get that awesome three months to look at naked goth girls on their website for free!- a lot of who I call "guys/gals with cameras" (GWC's) will normally take this attitude.
That's cool. If what you do has so little value to you that you that's what it's worth then rock on.
The REAL problem is the next bit that you agree to:
Non-Competition. Photographer agrees that for two (2) years after the full execution of this Assignment, Photographer will not directly or indirectly: (i) sell or otherwise provide Internet, photographic, video, film, audio, text, design, artistic or other creative content to any “SG Competitor”; or (ii) own, manage, operate, join, control, finance or participate in the ownership, management, operation, control or financing of, or be connected as an officer, director, employee, partner, member, principal, agent, representative, consultant or otherwise, to any “SG Competitor”. “SG Competitor” means any person, entity or organization other than SG that competes with SG, including but not limited to any person, entity or organization that creates, develops, manufactures, produces, distributes, markets, licenses or sells events, products or services that compete with SG.
Now it should be obvious why this little bit is a problem. Basically it means you can't take photos for ANYONE that may be deemed a competitor for SG... Go back and READ that bit again.
Here are a few small examples not in "legalese".
Client approaches you to do playboy submission - tough luck. Competitor. Same goes for ANYONE that puts out a competing product.
Now you may be thinking to yourself, "hey no big deal, I'm just small time, only do local stuff. I wouldn't ever do a submission for a magazine anyway).... You need to realize that a "competing" product can be just about anything which someone may buy as an alternative to their stuff.
Here is a more "local" example: A local business wants to put out a calendar and wants to hire you... guess what, no dice. SG sells a calendar - therefore he is selling a competing product - bang - competitor. Do it and you could be sued (and probably will if they find out as they have done it before). Especially if it is a more known business like Hooters, Show Me's, etc. Heck you can't even do it for free!
Remember, sign SG's photographer release form and you can't provide ANY products to ANY one that SG may say is a competitor. You smart guys and gals out there will know exactly how far reaching this bit is.
Now I'm not saying "Don't do it!" I mean a spanking isn't punishment if you like it right? But do so at your own risk.
Oh and if you don't think they will sue, they did so to one of their own photogs for the photos he took of his wife for her website: http://digg.com …_Photographer_for_100_000