I've seen some posting here re: the Suicide Girls bulk content package which says never to do business with Content Pinup. I do not agree.
Being an expert in my niche, when the Suicide Girls content package first came on offer, I worried that the license for this particular deal was a poison pill for webmasters. But I am convinced that J$tyle$ and Content Pinup did their very best to take care of their customers in what turned out to be a bad situation.
I want to state unequivocally that Jonathan Silverstein and Content Pinup were totally professional in all my dealings with them and neither I nor my affiliate program
SpookyCash nor my overall company Blue Blood has any problem or dispute whatsoever with anyone from Content Pinup or Blowout.
A number of webmasters expressed concern that the terms of the license were very limiting. My company was only interested in the content in a very limited way, so there was only one sentence in the contract which concerned me:
?Licensee MAY NOT use any Suicide Girls name, logo or trademarks anywhere on Licensee's website(s) or otherwise.? I found this sentence vague, confusing, and potentially overreaching, so I asked Jonathan Silverstein for an explanation. His clarification sounded fine to me, so I provided the much clearer replacement sentence,
?As the Licensor is not Suicide Girls, nor any of the models, this license specifically DOES NOT confer any special rights to use the Suicide Girls name (registration Serial Number 76408248) or logo (registration Serial Number 76408240) or any particular model pseudonym in previews on licensee's paysites, banners, designs, logos, TGPs or MGPs created with this material.?
What should have been a very simple business deal among professionals turned out to be anything but.
SuicideGirls' attorney Paul Loving rejected the clarification of that one sentence, stalling for more than a month, refusing to enumerate what trademarks he was trying to protect, or otherwise explain that one confusing sentence. In a specific contract negotiation, it seems like the burden should not be on the licensee to guess what potentially unregistered trademarks could be an issue.
I just want to reiterate that, if Content Pinup or Blowout were to offer a package with a normal license which fit my format, I would still do business with them in the future.
I've only included here the details of this situation which are relevant to webmaster concerns. In the unlikely event that there are GFYers who want to read more detail on the whole thing, you can check
Adult FYI or
Luke Ford.