WWAmateurs-a site to avoid; some facts for models

[Chopper_Images]

Hi

I shoot most of the content for a well-known UK glamour model who has made previous comments on these pages. Last year (in the summer of 2011) her day-job and livelihood was under threat because of her 'modelling activities' and she had to curtail her own website activities in order to save her job.

Her main partner web-site was WWAmateurs and they agreed to close her pages and remove all her content, 6-months after notification which effectively meant that the pages, photos and video content should all have been removed by Dec 2011. Despite numerous emails and pleas they still haven't done this and the pages and URL are still active although no new content since June 2011.

So for a year now, the WWA site has taken all the revenue and continues to do so, despite a commitment to close the site. The model has received nothing but stress, grief and the threat of dismissal from her day-job. Emails are now being ignored and having seen them and tried to contact the people on WWA on her behalf you can perhaps draw your own conclusions.

This email is not meant as a 'name and shame' just as a salutary warning for any model contemplating their own 'shared web-site'. Often the debate comes up about Southern Charms and WWAmateurs and it might be worthwhile to know this as it's not the first time this has happened with WWA. Both Kinky Kayleigh and Charlotte are previous WWA models who had similar issues with the folk at WWA.

The model in question has actually helped recruit models in the past for WWA, Cate Harrington, Faye X being at least two who's initial pages were shot by me for WWA after being set-up by the model.

If you wish to know more, facts and not opinions, or if you can't work out who the model is then do contact me.

Chopper

[Mysteryman]

I can't understand why a web site wouldn't co-operate but there is an old (well as least as old as the Web) adage which all models should note:

"once on the Web - always on the Web"

and this model's images can be found in tens of dozens of places all over the Web.

Having followed her troubles last year and what seems to me appalling victimisation by an employer poking its nose into her free time activities, I was always concerned that she would never be able to remove her Web presence.

For one of the most approachable and friendly models - in her dealings with her fans - to be treated in this way by a well known industry company, at a time of obvious distress for her, is indefensible.

[Mysteryman]

In the post above, the words "a well known industry company" should read "a well known porn industry company"

[Paul Taylor]

Hi,
If the website had her sign an agreement and you should have a copy of this if one was signed.

It usually says in these web partnership agreements something along the lines of, if the model decides to quit and stop providing content for said site, they will stop being paid until submission of content resumes.

If the model chooses to leave the industry then no content will ever be supplied again, so that means that no payment to model at all and the site will remain as an archive.

Usually these web partnerships are that they own the domain name, host the site, design it, update it and most of the time promote and market it to get it sales.

This usually results in them taking 50% and paying the content provider 50%. This is a deal I have got now. It's not your site, but rather a site that features your content as the people who run these things, don't usually shoot their own content and there fore need content providers.

If this is the case then they don't have to remove it if a model changes her mind. If the content was shot by them and model releases where signed, then they own the content and again the content can't be removed.

If you own the content but you did sign a partnership deal it will say that they own the content in that form as its there website and that the site or content will not be removed.

The saying once on the internet, always on the internet is true.

There is no way of telling further own the line that a model will decide to leave the industry, even when they say they are in it for the long run, at the time they mean it.

Then life happens, they were single at the time and have now met someone, or they are getting married or the partner has found out whatever..... But this is the way it goes, when you get into this its forever....... full stop.

There are no rights sadly and some business or company would not take it down at the nice request of a model if they are making money out of it. They probably said they would remove just to shut you up, where they should of just come out and said no we aren't going to sorry, like I would of done.

I have been asked loads of times in the past and my answer is, its my content, you signed a model release and you were paid, and I am a nice, helpful guy but you can't run a business on taking content down at the request of every model who asks. Plus I can't take it down, its passed on to the site owners, which I signed and agreed to so they would have to be the ones to take down content on SSCC and good luck with that.....

It will of been downloaded, uploaded to tube sites, posted n torrents sites, its all over the place and removing it from the place it was from originally will not help things.

I find it shocking that someone who has left this industry is getting threatened by their work of being sacked this should not happen, and this is another matter to be looked into, on where she stands on this and if someone can be sacked for their past and for that I feel for her.

All of my post is assuming what I have said is the case, if not and nothing was signed and no one was paid then you may have something to go on.

So going on what you have said, they aren't companies to avoid, your message should be think about if you want the adult industry to be forever part of your life, as partner website or even published web stuff is there for good, even if you regret it. This doesn't make them bad companies to avoid, but the deal that they offer is something to consider and think about before jumping in. The haven't done anything wrong by what you say above unless there is more to the story?

[one eyed jack]

I have no idea of names behind some of the websites but maybe consider this:

One model got in touch with me recently regarding a similar issue inthat she couldnt get hold of her webmaster.

A little digging later we came up with the guy had committed suicide.

Do you even know the person behind those sites is even still alive?

On another note and regarding Paul Taylors post, I have no such clause like that in my contract.

The way I see it, irrespective of the models work, I have not only shot it but ive probbaly incurred costs travel petrol wise and sometimes location that needs to be recovered.

My contracts are in my favour but I also include a provisions section that can be used by the model that many models seldom use afte rthey have been paid so I assume all is well.

Ive been asked to emove content that I have bought an dpaid for and simply dint see the point of removing anyhting that is still on the web elsewhere or on someone else hard drive.

In short: Dont expect to erase all existence of your work in this area on the net because you won't. With all the fiesharing going on now there is absolutely zero guarantee anyone can offer and its on this basis why I refuse to remove content.

If this is unnacceptable then simply dont work for me. I've never coerced anyone to do things they didnt want to do and wont tolerate anyone that wastes my time either.

[emmab]

She should be contacting citizens advice regarding her employer and sorting the legal issues regarding that rather then the website.
Sorry but I'm sure it isn't the only website with her photos on and she knew when she started doing adult work that the chance of people finding out is always there.
If you don't want people to find your adult photos/videos then don't do them in the first place!

[one eyed jack]

Indeed Emma. The whole point of doing porn is that the product is made with the sole intention of it being sold to the buying public so how cold anyone expect to not be found out?

[femorg]

Sorry, Am I missing something here?
The model in question presumably signed a model release and that would normally give all rights, in perpetuity, to the content buyer. No?

we have had a small number of models ask us retrospectively to remove their content from our sites because of such things as jobs, or new partners, or embarrassment, whatever. They usually offer to pay back what they were paid.

Our typical shoots (depending on content) cost us between ?270 and ?450, not counting media, postange and time.

BUT, once we have distributed the model's media, made DVDs, put them on sites for sale, not to mention lost revenue stream, we would be out of pocket c. ?2000 just from the time and effort of trying to withdraw products (and we could never guarantee that because once stuff is on the web it's real hard to completely remove).

In some cases we have moved mountains to try and oblige a model, but if we had to do that too frequently, we'd go out of business. It costs real time and money to process the video and stills from a shoot, and then there are affiliates involved who may have expended considerable effort in marketing our content, and they could be out of pocket.

I really think that models, once they decide yo enter the adult business and sign a contract, should only do so if they recognise that once material is on the web, there's no absolute, and certainly no cheap way, to remove it at a future date. The web is like that.

Donald

[Chopper_Images]

Interesting comments -

Msteryman thanks for your supportive words. Much appreciated.

Paul/Terry - yep totally understand the perspective but the content is not shot by WWAmateurs nor exclusively owned by WWAmateurs. I've used it on the model's behalf elsewhere. (Other sites/magazine) ~ hey I shot it after all. And I shot the content of Cate Harrington and FayeX that's also on the WWAmateurs site.

The fact that once 'you're on the web, you're on the web' is totally understood, not challenged and completely accepted. In fact I believe the model's employer was magnanimous in saying the same thing in a disciplinary hearing. The fact is that someone's livelihood is threatened with all the accompanying stress and those that agreed (in writing) to help i.e. WWamateurs then do no such thing.

As for an unanswered emails and an untimely set of circumstances, well if the web-site is still being managed, changed and reformatted then either they've invented Artificial Intelligence before Bill Gates or it's done by powers beyond the grave.

Donald I think you are indeed missing the point, there is no model release as the model has not been photographed by the site. The model has been photographed by a partner, or herself, or more likely by a regular photographer(s) and then edits then uploads the content herself to the site to her own pages. That's the business model for WWAmateurs and Southern Charms etc,

I too agree with Terry and others and would probably want suitable sizeable recompense if I had my own site with models and was asked by a certain model to remove all the content. I would want at least equivalent compensation if this was the circumstance here, but it's NOT. WWAmateurs don't pay models.

For Emma and anyone else who would like more details then I can assure you that the CAB, lawyers and Unions who in some cases will try their best but have zero chance if the employer wants to dismiss you. Been there, done that.. not really interested in debating the rights and wrongs of Victorian double standards. If you really want to know more then email me, but my sentiments are the same of those who have posted above.

Just to get back to the main point here that seems to have been overlooked. This post was meant as a warning to any model currently on WWAmateurs or contemplating joining. DO AVOID people who make a commitment to help and then renege on the same promise despite being aware of the stressful circumstances that are affecting that person.

Thanks
Chopper

[videokim]

We have removed a couple of models pics on the free part of the site to do them a favour when they have had problems in their private lives but we still keep the movies in the paid members area.
Terry & Donald are right in what they say & porn is a business like any other at the end of the day, this is the main reason we stuck to shooting women 40+ as they are more settled in the lives & relationships.
Shooting, editing & getting it on the net takes time so like Donald says the value of that shoot incresses ten fold so removing it costs a lot to the producer.