Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham
They were great for the time. the quality of the images is down to being shot on negatives which are now around 20 years old.
As a shooter who sold to an area in porn that few other online porn shooters could. What does that say about the rest?
Honest question. When so many custom shooters were working for $300 a scene they sold out right, why do you think none sold to magazines? Make a real honest reply, because if I was good enough, they weren't in some way.
|
Serious question as I'm genuinely interested.
Did you shoot on your own and then sell sets to magazines or were you a staff shooter?
Did the magazines set the usage rights?
Could you sell a set to Club and then sell the exact same set to Barely Legal?
It truly is a great deal to retain your rights to the images you've sold with which you can then resell over and over. I thought magazines would have bought the sets exclusively to keep their competitors from getting the same material.
If Club buys the set first and then Barely Legal gets it, Club is mad because their content has been diluted and Barely Legal would be mad because their subscribers may have already seen the images ( used content ).
When I submitted my work to mainstream magazines I was often warned by photo editors not to submit the same thing to competing magazines. They wouldn't even accept duplicate slides because of this. Their reasoning made sense to me and I didn't have a choice anyway because they set the rules.
I can see how the magazines you sold to back then would let let you keep the rights for anything but selling to competing magazines because back then the internet wasn't even a thought so they weren't worried about it. Seems like shooters today would be stuck selling exclusive due to the easy proliferation.