Page Summary
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
berrybramble : (no subject) [+1] - electricxcherry : (no subject) [+3]
- sixsixsixty : (no subject) [+9]
- diamentia : (no subject) [+0]
- saltatoria : (no subject) [+7]
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif){kind=small}
sgirlsLog in Create a LiveJournal Account Learn more
| You are viewing the community sgirls Log in Create a LiveJournal Account Learn more | Explore LJ Culture Entertainment Life Music News & Politics Technology |
berrybramble : (no subject) [+1] electricxcherry : (no subject) [+3] sixsixsixty : (no subject) [+9] saltatoria : (no subject) [+7]
Comments
I think he's rad and I hope he doesn't get zotted.
and for a second i was glad to see that staff commented on his question-until i read it. i guess it's true that they really don't have any obligation to explain a frigging thing, but you'd think that they would finally be real about a few issues just to stop all of the repeat questions and accusations.
but then they wouldn't be sg, would they? :P
http://suicidegirls.com/boards/search/k
However, if you are planning on becoming an SG, you need to know what you are getting to. Most business models exist on a strict 'while employed' anti compete clause... But that doesn't mean you couldn't say, start your own business doing the same thing on the side (as I've done before)... it really doesn't mean that you can't even work two seperate jobs in the same field, as long as they are not producing a product that competes with the product your company provides.
The catch here, is that the model is the product, the book of blood is signed, and you are owned. Even non-models are owned. Have you ever read the EULA, it basically states that anything you post to SG, regardless of you are a model is owned by SG, and they may use it for any purpose.
The internet is saturated by sites, and there are specialty sites, in most business models, when you are signed on by contract say for a particular job, you are given an incentive bonus to stay with said company.
This true in the more 'de facto' pornography biz, these outfits want product that can be associated with their business... they look at the 'models' as an asset, not a number, not a privledged plebe willing to give up their rights just for the glory of getting naked for someone elses proffit... That's called amature porn, or low budget porn...
It just so happens that the lie is wrapt in a pretty bow, and backed up by people who would rather believe the lie, than realise the fact that the emporesses are being paid to wear no clothes.
off topic, i found an excellent definition of "independent contractor". the first line totally negates the claim that sgs are just that:
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/i028.htm
so then what are they?
http://www.house.gov/visclosky/hr2642.h
blows the "sgs are ics" argument right out of the water.
But seriously, what does it make them, legally? THIS is a very interesting point of discussion...
it would seem pretty basic to me-i work for you as an ic. you fire me because i go and work for someone else at the same time. i sue you for loss of earnings. i win.
certainly makes you think...
I wonder if you CAN be an independent contractor under certain contractual limitation terms, however, nowhere in the SG contract does it actually state that you COULD be terminated for working for another site... and many of the models' were denied further work after signing that contract.
This is a really good question for a lawyer, or for some other fair employment agency (Fair Housing handles some things related to fair employment, though it's usually based on discrimination).
I'll have to look into the various forms of possible employment online a bit later tonight. You've brought up one of the most potentially relevent things on this forum in a very long time as it could actually be a legal violation if they are denied continued work illegally or not taxed properly.
There are employees, there are subcontractors or independent contractors, and there are freelance workers or statutory workers. Models are primarily freelance workers. But as freelance workers, they cannot be prohibited to engage in work with other companies (UNLESS it's specified in the initial contract which they have signed), or they could possibly sue for damages for not being able to maintain other jobs. Usually this is accomplished via working as a modelling agency, and signing an exclusivity contract, which should be express (eg. you have spelled it out and they understand that they are bound by this obligation), and not implied (an implied contract is one which becomes contractually binding because of the performance of one individual towards another).
If a contractor, in this case Suicide Girls, implies that they have exclusivity that is competitive... as follows in these links (and some others I perused)...
http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/arti
http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/auntie/qu
http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/arti
... then the potential for them to suddenly become considered actual employees by implied contract ensues (because of the exclusivity issue that is not in contract... it is quite spelled out in some of those links... that someone acting as an independent contractor or freelance agent may actually be acting under certain employment terms, in which case the employer is then subject to the same governing laws as any employer).
If they revise their contract to include the exclusivity issue initially, they are no longer implying that their freelancers are in fact employees... but are exclusive freelance agents. That is NOT illegal in any way, as long as it is understood from the outset.
So, at present, because of the contractual issues, I would imagine Suicide Girls could face about 280 potential lawsuits for damages limiting the ability of a freelance agents' work potential.
But that's just my supposition. I'm not a lawyer myself. I'm going to ask my lawyer about this the next time we speak (most likely at some point this week).
If there are different laws for artists, I certainly could not find them, and I do think they are usually considered freelancers.
And yes, contracts are very open to review (why do people constantly say, well you signed a contract, DEAL, that's the most inane thing I have ever heard, seriously, I deal with contract litigation on some level almost DAILY), and often poorly written. Mine has already been reviewed by a contract lawyer (who is very close friends with specifically a porn lawyer, yeah, they do exist), who felt it was voidable. And considering that things have changed in the past year or so, it's even more potentially voidable at this point.
If you have an express written contract with an employee, it will usually state the reasons for which the employee can be fired. If you want to terminate that employee, you must follow what the contract says. Often, contracts will simply state that an employee can only be terminated for something called good cause. Sometimes, however, the contract will be more detailed. Either way, you must follow the contract terms.
Usually, the existence of an implied employment contract means that you can fire an employee only for good cause.
Good Faith and Fair Dealing
If you have a contract with an employee, then you have an obligation to treat that employee fairly. Although this rule might seem like a gaping hole in your ability to terminate employees, it really isn't. To breach this obligation, employers have to engage in very egregious conduct. For example:
firing employees to prevent them from collecting sales commissions
firing employees just before their retirement benefits vest, and
fabricating evidence of poor performance when the real motivation is to replace the employee with someone who will work for lower pay.
If a model wants to state her reasons for leaving, she can. Olivia and Missy have explained things a few times, like when a model left for medical reasons.
If it's kept private, the members have no right to know since it's PRIVATE.
I could name fifteen models who didn't have a chance to state their reasons for leaving... and then, some who do are immediately removed and their comments disappear from their journal. This depends. Some are removed in minutes.
If you want to play Devil's Advocate here, I would suggest you do your research very thoroughly and try to understand the perspective of those to whom you are trying to speak to, as in this case, where no one cares what s5 has publically stated, let alone believes it, especially in light of the glaring discrepancies made between some of their public statements vs. their private statements.
And how private are some things really kept? Sean and I agreed to have a PRIVATE reason for my leaving, but he then proceeded to "educate" a hundred or so models on his girls' group about things I could read and not respond to, and to permit huge amounts of lies to go on. I have that saved, and could repost it in a heartbeat. It's definately is an interesting illustration of how the staff character is often two-faced.
As I explained to Hammersmith, the member who asked why reasons weren't given, the staff hasn't given reasons on the boards for a very very very long time because they're sick of the ensuing drama and so on. I don't know what happens in the SG group because I'm not in it, so I have to take your word on that.
Members will sometimes post a girl's reason on the board because they saw her goodbye journal, and that's cool, but the staff has a policy of not making a reason public.
Sometimes I do wish to know the reason a girl left or got "fired", but I also know not everything is my business, and I leave it at that.
and there are the kind who believe they should leave the world be.
Someone has to get things done. Guess which kind of person does, or is capable of doing?
oxox