Ex-Suicidegirls Take it in the Proverbial Ass.
The drama surrounding the alternative porn pin-up site, suicidegirls.com, has been well documented and often lampooned in the great and mighty blogosphere. The model accusations have been dismissed by many, with the help of heavily moderated forums, as the ramblings of histrionic ladies and mischievous termagants. However, recent developments involving the resale of model images for use on hardcore sites like punkrockgirlfriend.com have gone a long way to qualifying the disillusionment of these models and peeling back the foreskin on the dark side of the pink empire.
Suicidegirls.com recently made a splash when contentpinup.com began advertising the sale of thousands of SG images for a very reasonable price. Almost immediately, panicked models raised a lot of questions. The official PR stance of the company seems to be playing dumb , not allowing the topic to me discussed on the site forums, and banning users that ask questions about it; questions like will all their personal information end up owned by a company operating out of Cypress ? The lawyer for suicidegirls.com, Paul Loving, wrote a letter admitting that contentpinup had the right to sell the images but that SG never intended that to happen. It seems, we are expected to believe, that it was all just a big whoopsie. A person can only deduce that 200,000 site subscribers doesn't equate to enough income to hire a lawyer that knows what he is doing.
When models sell their photosets to SuicideGirls, they can be sure of what the pictures will be used for. They will be on the website for as long as it stands, they may be used for advertising, they may be published in media such as the SG book. It would be surprising if they suddenly found that their images were sold to a different site without their consent or knowledge, or were being altered, or were being misrepresented, but nothing like that happens. - Olivia Ball
The problem with accepting the "inept business ability" excuse offered by suicidegirls.com is the choice of model images that they decided to sell. None of the models are currently active on the site. Even more telling is the fact that many of the models are also the loudest voices against SG, several being interviewed for articles in major publications like Spin, Jane, and Bust. These are the "archived" girls, sent to the alt-porn purgatory where suicidegirls.com strips the model of the only thing that made them unique - their voice. It is important to note that you will not find Olivia Ball included in this archive - when she left the site, so did her naked images. It seems that having a business that at one point was paid a $12,000/month retainer, 15% of the yearly profits, and an hourly rate for emergency services by suicidegirls.com can keep a girl out of the archive.
With all those subscribers and with a well run myspace publicity campaign lining up thousands of 16 year old girls wanting to be the next suicidegirl, it's hard to believe that cash is a motivation for selling these images. If one applies Ockham's razor to the situation, they are left with two options: (a) Suicidegirls.com was attempting to sell "mobile content" that only included images of non-active models and botched it so badly that their most notable and outspoken ex-models ended up on hardcore sites "begging for cock" or (b) SuicideGirls.com is run by petty, vindictive, and overly litigious people who continually fail to extend the slightest gesture of good faith to models; concealing corporate greed behind a punk rock persona.
It seems an easy choice to make.
Sourced from SuicideGirlx.com