i think that thegirls who were sg models before the archive sould be exempt.
what i fing interesting are threads like this where the artist only had to email the girls instead of the site to get permiision.
if they aren't the girls' pics, how can they give the ok?

http://suicidegirls.com/boards/The+Girls/38268/

PS TO DIA: look at the guy's "suicide bride" poster.

I don't know that much about all of this so far, but here's my opinion. If you are getting paid for the pic, they are buying it from you. They own it. If you don't want that, don't send in pics. It's not like they are trying to trick people. Most people know what they are getting into before they do it. I guess it would suck to want them to be taken down, but there are a lot of things in life that suck. It is a buisness, a fun one, but still a buisness. I think it's fair.

as a photographer, and this may be unpopular, i think that if a model reads (understands) and signs a contract that says she/he/insert prefered pronoun here, gives up all rights and ownership to their images, then, that's the deal. Period. SG and other sites spend a lot of time and energy dealing with those pictures for use on their websites, they have and investment in them, a worth, that goes beyond the initial purchase, or contractual agreement of those pictures. As long as SG, or another site is complying with their contract (say, by continuing the free membership unless the person has violated an agreed upon TOS) the images are theirs. End of story, in my book.

Question: haven't we talked about this issue like 8 million times?

you read the contract you signed it... end of story...

i agree with [Bad username: fatalmichael"] it does state in the contract that they will own the images and thus they do.

What i think is iffy, if not unfair, is that they dont offer to explain the contract so they know the girls understand it. I *always* explain my model release, and even have a clause in it that says (paraphrase) "i understand the contract". I doubt so many would be signing if they really did understand it. But then the same goes for all contracts, im sure we all have a friend of a friend that has been screwed over by a 2nd hand car dealing or the likes.

So really, READ IT BEFORE YOUR SIGN IT!!

yup, SG has my photos forever, thats okay by me, i signed the contract

I don'y think It's unfair at all....

Here's a question: isn't it THE PHOTOGRAPHER who can sell photos? I mean, if someone shot a girl's photos, doesn't he own the rights to the photos? Does SG shoot the photos?

It's not really that much different than the work I did programming in software... I mean, I can't leave the office with the code I wrote as that would be like taking IP...

If you consider the photos to be IP then it's the same thing, which I think it is.

ooooo-i'm going to play devil's advocate (which i NEVER do).

what if you had done the same sets but as print work for a magazine? it would be there forever and ever and there is nothing you could do about it.

um....that's all i've got. :P

The photographer owns the photographs unless they have signed anything, and they can sue for having their photographs used without their consent.

You already know most of my answer to this question otherwise, though. Factors: models aren't always of the understanding of what they have signed... the terms of the contract are in legalese, and jargon, and can easily confuse a model, which constitutes a lack of meetings of the mind, one of the elements necessary for creating a legal contract. Other factor: material change of the site is concrete and a model who signs with the understanding that a site is one way and within a certain limitation in scope (eg. a small site, or a non-highly trafficked site, like some of the early models) then have a lot more clout to say, I was not of the understanding that this was within the possibilities of the fate of my photographs when I agreed to model for the site which I did, which has changed. Eg. if you buy a car that says Honda and later turns out to be a Mercedes, you can absolutely expect to return that car and be refunded later, even if Mercedes says, "But we gave you a better car."

I found about a dozen and a half loopholes in the SG contract when I went through it. I'm not going to list the great ones, because those are my own tactics, thank you very much.

Beyond that, if you want to stick with the ethical issue, I think it's the responsability of a company to deliver what it has promised, and as long as the model has understood what is promised (eg. knows the site direction, esp. if it's up in the air, or uncertain, as apparently SG was when it started out as a small DIY-type site and became a much larger deal), SG does not have an ethical obligation to remove their photographs, IF the model HAS understood the possibilities, EXCEPT SG ought to still have enough ethical consideration to do so in exceptional circumstances, after review, if there could be more harm done than good, financially or morally. Most companies DO adhere to this policy, especially if you make an appeal or threaten negative publicity (see Michael Moore: Bowling For Columbine for a small reference).

If a girl joined pre-archives, and pre-expansion potential, obviously she should be removed upon request, as vital material facts have in fact changed her understanding of the contract which she signed. If a girl were to join right now, while I'd hope SG would remove a girl because they wouldn't want a model who hated being on the site, I would think that model understood the site direction and possibilities and general nature enough that her removal would be less of a legal issue and more of a wishful thinking ethical one, but the situation would have to be fairly exceptional in that event, in my humble opinion. And if it truly financially impacted the site, I think the model would have to face that. But I'm not sure there IS any one model impacting the site in that way, or they'd not bother with the other 280 odd... there is NO non-expendable model on SG (financially and community-wise), unlike during its formative stages.

I think it goes a great deal by what the contract says.

If SG breaks any areas of the contract then the model is probably entitled to have herself removed from the site.

Because the contract is only as valid as it's being adhered to.

If the model violates any terms of the contract then she probably could have her access to the site revoked and SG could retain her images because the model has broken the arrangement that they have agreed upon.

Also one has to ask if the contract covers certain contingencies such as dismissals.

In general any contract probably has some level of exploitability to it, simply because a contract cannot contain every possible scenario that could occur within its confines.

Personally I feel that any contract that is not amicable to both parties in the long run is one which should bare no weight. But that is unfortunately not a legal standpoint but a moral one.

Unfair or illegal? Law is stylized violence and whatever the traffic will bear is LEGAL. I think the more relevant issue is whether it is PRUDENT or WISE. Lots of things that are legal are incredibly stupid, and smart people recognize this and eat losses all the time.

Any contract, like any lock, can be broken with the appropriate application of intelligence and leverage. I would be *very* interested to see someone (or a group of someone's) go after SG with a breach-of-contract suit for nullification. Given the representation of what a "lifetime" membership was at the time of signing (uncensored posting, etc), the commercial value of the pictures at the time (amount paid) and the potential value of a lifetime of access to anything (especially if the model planned to use SG as professional development and marketing, as SG Siren successfully has) and so on, a very lucid argument could be made that the models were promised more than was delivered and are entitled to compensation, even damages.

One of the things I read about Steve Jobs and Disney (when he was initially negotiating for the first Toy Story movie) was that Jobs insisted that their contract be no more than five pages. Now *that* was courage. Jobs still got screwed because he did not understand how movie budgets and payments worked, but not nearly as badly as if he had put up with bullshit such as a 147-page contract.

When contracts *really* fail there are the extralegal measures. As I told a client once who wanted an NDA (non-disclosure agreement) all contracts are more or less polite bullshit. The mafia, for example, doesn't sign NDA's.

Given their unstable model and client base (present company excluded of course ;-) ), Sean is playing with fire and pride precedes a fall. Ask Larry Flynt.

most contracts end with the text "I have read and understand these conditions".

I do have to say, if you don't understand....... don't sign the form. the problem is that they get a bunch of really young girls that don't care to understand the form and will sign anyway cause their desire to want to be on the site takes over their better judgement.

in the end, all these girls are "adults" being over 18 years of age and did willfully and knowingly sign these contracts. taking away their memberships after telling them it was there for life is pretty much ass though.

i definetely dont want to be on the site anymore.