ShadeDiva
Posts: 999
Joined: 3/31/2004
From: Sacramento, California
Status: offline
|
I guess why it struck me as odd is because most photographers at some point play with BDSM nuances. I can't think of many photographers besides religious ones (and even some of those) that *haven't* done that type of work - although a few famous ones come to mind, but I personally think they probably did and just didn't release them.
In the art world, it is one of the only fields where that subject matter is almost excused or considered passe, no one would bat an eye at an artistic photographer doing that type of subject. The human body is a beautiful thing, why it shouldn't be held up as exquisite right along and next to landscapes, portraits, flora, and everything else seems like self-censorship at work to me, I suppose.
That being said, if they aren't going to be found in the more extreme displays of BDSM - why do your models need to be submissive, or even BDSM'ers at all? We find tons of vanilla models that are eager to do artful and thought provoking nudes or partial nudes or even implied nudes where they arent nude at all in reality as well - but the pose, lighting, and shot give that impression, as long as the image is good and of quality and isn't just a cheap shock value deal, as well as fetish work, and BDSM orientated or flavored work - both subtle and/or blatent.
I guess I was puzzled by the requirement they be submissive, when there really isn't a need for that orientation for a good picture, and then the veiling of your information. Just seemed unusual, especially considering that most folks are proud of their work and tend to want folks to see it and know who took it - I'd have to say you're the first artist I've met that was loathe to be attached to their work, so that in itself fascinates me to no end. lol. I'm the inquistive sort, does it show? lol.
Some of our better submissive type pictures (really more like portraits, but still) were in actuality dominants posing, and doing something different in an artistic sense, as well as vanillas.
I can understand, okay sort of understand, being a private individual, but that doesn't say why you couldn't do site under your scene name, or even a profile on yahoo or even here on CM, to display some of your work.
After all, there are a LOT of guys out there that use the I'm a famous photographer line just to get girls to strip for them - I'm not saying that YOU are - just one of the things we tell beginning models and photographers that are just getting into fetish and BDSM type photography, if the photographer will not be openly honest about themselves, or their body of work, and seek to keep that hidden (and we have heard every reason under the sun), that is a red flag.
I can't count the times we've heard horror stories from models that guys told them this or that, and yeah some dudes even go so far as to claim *another* photographer's work as theirs and state that they can't for whatever reasons be linked to their name only to find out the guy wasn't that guy at all and it was merely an elaborate story to make them look credible so to gain access to these girls.
Again, I'm NOT saying nor implying that is the case with you, but rather that a standard warning of those that do fetish and BDSM photography is for models to NOT go do shoots with people that actively seek to be mysterious. And I am using this as a jumping start to hand that warning out to those on this site - not to derail you at all, but because this is a very real and very common problem with those seeking models. I can't think of a single well established photographer that wouldn't be happy to be free with their information for exactly that reason. There are a LOT of really strange people out there (and yes, some models have been sexually assaulted by photographers, or worse) - and a picture is FOREVER - and it can haunt you if the wrong person has that image in their control.
For a stab at educating models out there that might read this - if you are going to model - especially within a fetish or BDSM aspect, keep ALL the rights to the image unless you trust that person or know they will not ever misuse it, or you sign a contract that spells it all out and you are comfy with that. Unless you pay the photographer, buy the film, or sign a contract stating all rights to that image remain YOURS (and IMO it is best that you do all three unless the photographer is paying YOU to model, and still make sure you sign a contract that spells out what rights to the image you maintain, if you don't mind giving up all rights, that's cool, but make sure you are aware of that before you sign it) - otherwise the default is that the photographer retains ALL rights to that image - and to do what they wish with them.
We've heard a lot of really ugly stories that have happened to models and photographers alike - but it's usually the models that get taken advantage of. The rights to the image are the photographers if they use their equipment, their film, and there is no contract. This mean they could make millions off the picture and you not see a dime, or they can publish them against your will - not even someone as rich as Madonna could retain the right of her images to not be published, so unless you can afford better a legal team than she can, you are screwed.
And again, I'm not attempting to deter anyone from using CT - just asking questions since I am curious and using this as a jumping point to help tell folks that if they wish to model, COOL, but be aware of what legal rights you have to those images, as the default is in the photographers favor, not with those that model.
~ShadeDiva
_____________________________
My projects of love:
theFetishForums
HumanFauna
Kinked
DommeWorld
|
Fine Art Photographer seeking Submissive Connecticut Su... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread