If a solo site model dies tragically, should her site be taken down out of respect? - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

CE_BigB · 12-20-2005, 10:59 AM

Fitty Respectful Posts

Big B
CECash.com

Mutt · 12-20-2005, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly

I'm curious... if said photographer was really so concerned about the family and friends of said model, why did he take her pictures and videos to begin with?

good question and one I think about alot.

pornguy · 12-20-2005, 11:02 AM

I agree with taking it down, Unless the family requests it be left up, because they need the money generated.

Theo · 12-20-2005, 11:02 AM

so what's the right reason if not the money?

I understand your concern, but I don't see how they really affect them, unless they search all day for nude pics of their daughter online. If they were not proud for their daughter decision to work in pornography is another thing takes a lot of discussion. Personally if you tell me they failed to accept it I would tell you they do not deserve to have another last testament of her life either.

Sly · 12-20-2005, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutt

people are confusing this issue by putting the older girls like Vanilla, Tassy etc who enter this business for the right reasons more or less and the young girls who come into this business looking for easy money and attention in the same boat - they are apples and oranges.

I'm not confusing anything.

Taking a site down does not equal respect. Get real. If anybody really expected these girls they would never take their pictures in the first place. These girls are young, they want attention, and they want money... a typical photographer is very charismatic, they prey on the weaknesses of this girl. Then they suddenly have a heart and *I'm* the prick because I don't agree with pulling a site.

L fucking OL.

No mother is sitting at her coffee table telling her friends "at least the man took down her horrible site." Instead, that mother is probably hating that man for tainting every memory she's ever had of her baby.

Mutt · 12-20-2005, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly

I'm curious... if said photographer was really so concerned about the family and friends of said model, why did he take her pictures and videos to begin with? Very few family members are ever going to "approve" their baby being plastered online as "masturbation material".

friends, boyfriends - couldn't care less about them - they are a transient part of their lives - family does concern me - good family anyway.

i have the answer for myself - one day i will have a blog up where i explain the world of 'barely legal' nude modeling as I see it.

Doctor Dre · 12-20-2005, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oracle Porn

If I spend $10k on a site, it's making me money and stable....I would send some flowers and my regrets to the family, but I would not take the site down.

You'll get a real shitty site for that ammount...

Theo · 12-20-2005, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nismo

Uh what in the hell are you talking about? Are you really comparing record sales to internet pornography? Just when I think some of you can't possibly get any lower, you justify it like this.

I don't directly compare them, but I don't discriminate the 2nd one either. When I entered this business I did that by having accepted and perceiving certain things. If you want the world to change opinion about this business you must treated it no differently. If you find this hitting a low level can only tell me you have not truly accepted what's the industry you are in.

Mutt · 12-20-2005, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly

I'm not confusing anything.

Taking a site down does not equal respect. Get real. If anybody really expected these girls they would never take their pictures in the first place. These girls are young, they want attention, and they want money... a typical photographer is very charismatic, they prey on the weaknesses of this girl. Then they suddenly have a heart and *I'm* the prick because I don't agree with pulling a site.

L fucking OL.

No mother is sitting at her coffee table telling her friends "at least the man took down her horrible site." Instead, that mother is probably hating that man for tainting every memory she's ever had of her baby.

photographers are NOT by and large charismatic. they have little to do with how or why a girl ends up naked on the Net.

we are talking about a situation that is TRAGIC - your mistake is seeing this as black and white - it's doing what's best or what's nice in the event of a horrible tragedy. if you really want to get into it - don't blame a photographer or webmaster waving hundred dollar bills for luring a girl into Internet porn stardom - it's that mother and that father who are ultimately responsible - so don't feel too bad about them. But we're talking about a tragedy here - your daughter being naked on the Internet at 19 isn't a tragedy and it's not forever - a sudden death changes things.

Nismo · 12-20-2005, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soul_Rebel

I don't directly compare them, but I don't discriminate the 2nd one either. When I entered this business I did that by having accepted and perceiving certain things. If you want the world to change opinion about this business you must treated it no differently. If you find this hitting a low level can only tell me you have not truly accepted what's the industry you are in.

I love this industry, but unfortunately, there's a bad stigma attached to it. Shit like leaving up a solo girl paysite of a model that is dead because you're still getting paid every month from it feeds the machine.

I guess im in the minority when I say I would feel dirty for continuing to profit from solo site that the star died recently and the parents were having a real hard time dealing with their daughters untimely death.

Sly · 12-20-2005, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutt

photographers are NOT by and large charismatic. they have little to do with how or why a girl ends up naked on the Net.

we are talking about a situation that is TRAGIC - your mistake is seeing this as black and white - it's doing what's best or what's nice in the event of a horrible tragedy. if you really want to get into it - don't blame a photographer or webmaster waving hundred dollar bills for luring a girl into Internet porn stardom - it's that mother and that father who are ultimately responsible - so don't feel too bad about them. But we're talking about a tragedy here - your daughter being naked on the Internet at 19 isn't a tragedy and it's not forever - a sudden death changes things.

I'm not blaming anyone. I'm hardly blaming the photographer or webmaster. The girl made her choice. HER choice. And it is "what's nice", I agree. I see that just fine.

ajrocks · 12-20-2005, 11:28 AM

You are kidding right? Business is business.

CynthiaB · 12-20-2005, 11:30 AM

At first, I thought yes, you should remove a site but then I thought about what others said - about mainstream actresses and singers who passed away. The best comparision would be, I suppose, a mainstream model's site - would you close that if she died?

I guess I'm not sure how being an adult model makes the difference in this scenario.

If her family came in and objected, then I'd take it down to meet their wishes. If they don't know or don't care - I'd probably leave it up - with no updates, I assume it would fade out over time anyway. . .

Cyn

Sly · 12-20-2005, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nismo

I love this industry, but unfortunately, there's a bad stigma attached to it. Shit like leaving up a solo girl paysite of a model that is dead because you're still getting paid every month from it feeds the machine.

I guess im in the minority when I say I would feel dirty for continuing to profit from solo site that the star died recently and the parents were having a real hard time dealing with their daughters untimely death.

I understand where you're coming from, I really do. I'm just trying to understand more how and why people feel the way they do.

You mentioned solo site specifically. Why is a solo site girl different from a regular porn girl? By regular porn girl I'm not referring to a Jenna, I'm referring to one of the regulars who goes studio to studio for work. If she dies, why is that easier to let go?

CDSmith · 12-20-2005, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pimpporn

Unless her immediate family wants or needs to retain the income generated from the site,

Therein lies your answer.

That's why it's always best to have a will, and have things like this specifically outlined in it. Things like "If I die, I want my website(s) to remain up and working, and all income from them that's mine will go to __________ and _________, to be divided equaly"

This is yet another fine time to tell people to get a will drawn up. If this girl had one this would be a non-issue.

Theo · 12-20-2005, 11:33 AM

I didn't think of it like that. If its the profit in the middle I can tell you I would donate all the earnings to their family, if there was a need of it but I wouldnt take the site down. I would treat it the exact say way if there was a contract discontinue.

btw, this is personal opinion, not DA policy and I wish none of us will be in such dillema

slapass · 12-20-2005, 11:34 AM

While I intellectually agree with Sly. If the family asked or in anyway implied they wanted the site closed. I guess I would. I do not need money that badly.

I think all of us who are at introspective have to wonder if we are making cash off of misery. The fact that many models come here and post is helpful. At least some of them just view this as a business.

Sly · 12-20-2005, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

Therein lies your answer.

That's why it's always best to have a will, and have things like this specifically outlined in it. Things like "If I die, I want my website(s) to remain up and working, and all income from them that's mine will go to __________ and _________, to be divided equaly"

This is yet another fine time to tell people to get a will drawn up. If this girl had one this would be a non-issue.

That would work if the site was actually hers, as in, she owned it. How often is that the reality? Jordan Capri does not own or have control over her site. When she "wanted out", her site stayed online.

After Shock Media · 12-20-2005, 11:41 AM

I see a few issues in all of this myself.

If its a pre-packaged solo site where the webmaster pre shot everything and paid it all in advance, where the model is now long gone for the most part. Then really it is up to the webmaster of the site. If for some reason he or she feels the need to try to cleanse thier soul and seek some redemption for what they had did when she was alive, then so be it and take it down. In your eyes you may be showing respect to the model, yet dis-respect to all those that trusted in you to promote your site. This choice though would be the webmasters to make.

If it is a partnership with the model everything gets a great deal more tricky. Most partnerships do not disolve at death unless that is stipulated in the initial contract. So I would think that this makes things a lot more tricky. I would think that the site and the partnership suddenly becomes basicly an asset that is now guarded by the estate of the model. I would then imagine that the webmaster can not just sever such an object because they wanted to. Since I am pretty sure you can not just dispose of assets beloging to the deceased when the deceased still basicly owns a portion of it. I am not a lawyer at all, yet I would think this is how it would be. So potentially I do not think the webmaster would be allowed to be the only one to make this choice.

Nismo · 12-20-2005, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly

You mentioned solo site specifically. Why is a solo site girl different from a regular porn girl? By regular porn girl I'm not referring to a Jenna, I'm referring to one of the regulars who goes studio to studio for work. If she dies, why is that easier to let go?

I mentiond solo site, because it focuses around the main model and the main model only. The surfer's fantasy is that girl. (i.e. www.modelsname.com vs www.cumdrinkers.com where said model is featured along with hundreds more).

The issue im trying to convey is you were profiting off of someones career in the adult industry, just like they were. Now, they are dead. Only you are profiting off of it now, a dead person's 15minutes in the porn industry. Isn't that a bit disgusting? Shit like that is what makes people hate this industry. That is what I call exploitation.

Now, if said model has been featured on other sites, I would, as an act of morality, take down her content. I know the content of the deceased would still be available but atleast noone would be profiting off of it.

SilentKnight · 12-20-2005, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nismo

Uh what in the hell are you talking about? Are you really comparing record sales to internet pornography? Just when I think some of you can't possibly get any lower, you justify it like this.

And just why do you consider someone "low" simply because they compared adult entertainment to record sales?

Business is business. Period.

Its a rather simple formula. A photographer makes an investment in hiring a model. Add to that the funding for camera and lighting gear, studio space, props, costumes, assistants....whatnot. Webhosting, transaction processing fees, administration, advertising & marketing, etc. In exchange, the model gets paid for the modeling gig she contracted for.

So then said model unfortunately passes away. So now, by your logic - the photographer is expected to take down the 'product' from the shelf and no longer make a return on his investment?

That's confusing business with personal affairs.

The comparison between record sales and model photos is quite suitable IMO - as such both are a business commodity...a product. Others have already said that removing the images wouldn't take them out of internet circulation anyways. Same as if you took - let's say all Queen albums off the shelves since Freddie Mercury passed away in 1991 - the music would still live on through radio, personal collections, libraries & archives.

People have to take responsibility for their own actions. If they decide to enter the adult entertainment industry - they're responsible for understanding the full magnitude of their decision.

SilentKnight · 12-20-2005, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nismo

The issue im trying to convey is you were profiting off of someones career in the adult industry, just like they were. Now, they are dead. Only you are profiting off of it now, a dead person's 15minutes in the porn industry. Isn't that a bit disgusting? Shit like that is what makes people hate this industry. That is what I call exploitation.

Nismo, while I respect and appreciate the passion from which you state your opinion - I find myself totally in disagreement here.

You say "you were profiting off of someone's career in the adult industry." Almost as if to imply a pimp/whore relationship. It denegrates the skill and investment of the photographer.

People die all the time - but the world doesn't grind to a halt because someone passes away. If an employee of a company dies, the company doesn't pull all the product off their shelves that the employee produced during their employment. Photography is the product produced by the combination of a model and photographer working together.

Let's turn this around hypothetically. Let's say the photographer dies. Should the model take down all the images from the website that he shot for her?

CDSmith · 12-20-2005, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly

That would work if the site was actually hers, as in, she owned it. How often is that the reality? Jordan Capri does not own or have control over her site. When she "wanted out", her site stayed online.

Yes, but you can usually will any existing ongoing income to your family at least.

I guess my point is that aggreements such as what to do with a site like this have to be made and in place before something tragic happens. These solo girls (where their site is under the control of another company) really need to nail down these details from the get-go.

12-20-2005, 01:55 PM

I think the site should stay up to honor the dead, but all profits off the site should go to close ones and relatives. I think profitting off a dead porn model where she is exposing her nude body (which is no longer with us) is a little distasteful. Comparing it to painter's works is a little bit different in my opinion.

EroticySteve · 12-20-2005, 02:02 PM

Always do what's right. Since "right" will vary from situation to situation discretion and respect are mandatory.

I personally don't think it would be disrespectful to honor and commemorate them after an untimely passing it the continuation of her business were done as such. Artists like others sometimes pass prematurely and their work continues to live on. This is common in music. The situation depends on the person.

Ron Bennett · 12-20-2005, 02:50 PM

Taken down? ... no way!

If anything, work the site harder ... and try to salvage as much as one can before the content runs out...

Though it would be considerate to explain to members that due to unforeseen circumstances (or get specific about what happened, if one feels that's appropriate) there will be little to no new content available...

In regards to the future of the site, the webmaster could do one or more of the following to maintain a revenue stream...

1. Setup / partner with some other sites and refer the paid members to them.

2. Basically do nothing... just keep collect the remaining rebills each month until they trickle down to zero.

3. Find another model and simply rebrand the site; most of the "rebills" won't mind (some may not even notice a difference) if the new model is hot too.

This is business ... the model did it for money ... so it's only fair for the website operator to recoup their investment; maximize profits.

Ron

Drake · 12-20-2005, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly

I'm curious... if said photographer was really so concerned about the family and friends of said model, why did he take her pictures and videos to begin with? Very few family members are ever going to "approve" their baby being plastered online as "masturbation material".

Anyway, I can see how so many people think the situation is different because its a "solo girl", I just don't agree. Is anybody asking for Britney Madison's content to be taken down? She is ALL over the place, along with several other models that have passed on. Its a tragic thing to watch people die so young, but again, I just don't see how taking content down is suddenly supposed to earn respect from the families when nobody gave a rats ass about the families beforehand.

Yep, it's just business

fitzmulti · 12-20-2005, 03:36 PM

[QUOTE=Sly] Is anybody asking for Britney Madison's content to be taken down? She is ALL over the place, along with several other models that have passed on.[QUOTE]

Exactly! Noone has, with Britney's or Julie Robbins, and everything has been worked out, as I stated sbove. Taking the sites down for a time, and then restructuring them as to not imply the girls were still alive, etc...example: "E-Mail Me Personally", or "See Me Live On Cam-Chat"-type things are all removed.

Now, realizing that these two examples are a bit different due to their popularity and porn careers, I would say that for example a new model, whose family would maybe be upset it would be the right choice to remove the site...

The bottom line is however, that as far back as models and model releases go...the girls know (or should know) what they are signing and doing. They are the ones that make the choice for this work - for whatever reasons they have - and the industry itself isn't :doing anything" to their family...if the family would be so upset AFTER the model passed awy, would they not have been equally as upset when the model was alive? The model made the decision to do the work...and if her family WAS an issue, she knew that beforehand.

Fitz

tony286 · 12-20-2005, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nismo

I love this industry, but unfortunately, there's a bad stigma attached to it. Shit like leaving up a solo girl paysite of a model that is dead because you're still getting paid every month from it feeds the machine.

I guess im in the minority when I say I would feel dirty for continuing to profit from solo site that the star died recently and the parents were having a real hard time dealing with their daughters untimely death.

It has nothing to do with porn its called business:
During the filming of the movie "The Crow" Brandon Lee is shot directly in the chest with a large calibur handgun they thought they put blanks in. He dies instantly , they still release the movie.
During the filming of one of the scenes from the Twilight zone movie, Actor Vic Morrow has head chopped off and a asian kid is killed during a helicoper crash. THey still released the movie.
HBO THe actress playing Tony Sopranos Mom dies before they start filming the next season. THey take parts she said before she died and digitally put her in scenes.
THis has nothing to do with porn its called business.

12-20-2005, 10:59 AM	#51
CE_BigB Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: So Cal Posts: 1,292	Fitty Respectful Posts Big B CECash.com __________________ NOW PAYING: $25 per FREE TRIAL signup $1.30 per email (No Deductions) CECash - Trusted & Paying since 1996! email: bigb at cecash dot com ICQ 36966649

12-20-2005, 11:02 AM	#53
pornguy Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Homeless Posts: 62,911	I agree with taking it down, Unless the family requests it be left up, because they need the money generated. __________________ PornGuy skype me pornguy_epic AmateurDough The Hottes Shemales online! TChicks.com \| Angeles Cid \| Mariana Cordoba \| MAILERS WELCOME!

12-20-2005, 11:28 AM	#62
ajrocks Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: On Uranus Posts: 4,526	You are kidding right? Business is business. __________________ SEO Strategy - Digital Strategy - Cannabis Lead Generation Skype aj.durden1

12-20-2005, 11:41 AM	#69
After Shock Media It's coming look busy Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn". Posts: 35,299	I see a few issues in all of this myself. If its a pre-packaged solo site where the webmaster pre shot everything and paid it all in advance, where the model is now long gone for the most part. Then really it is up to the webmaster of the site. If for some reason he or she feels the need to try to cleanse thier soul and seek some redemption for what they had did when she was alive, then so be it and take it down. In your eyes you may be showing respect to the model, yet dis-respect to all those that trusted in you to promote your site. This choice though would be the webmasters to make. If it is a partnership with the model everything gets a great deal more tricky. Most partnerships do not disolve at death unless that is stipulated in the initial contract. So I would think that this makes things a lot more tricky. I would think that the site and the partnership suddenly becomes basicly an asset that is now guarded by the estate of the model. I would then imagine that the webmaster can not just sever such an object because they wanted to. Since I am pretty sure you can not just dispose of assets beloging to the deceased when the deceased still basicly owns a portion of it. I am not a lawyer at all, yet I would think this is how it would be. So potentially I do not think the webmaster would be allowed to be the only one to make this choice. __________________ [email protected] ICQ:135982156 AIM: Aftershockmed1a MSN: [email protected]

12-20-2005, 02:02 PM	#75
EroticySteve Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: The Sunshine State Posts: 4,365	Always do what's right. Since "right" will vary from situation to situation discretion and respect are mandatory. I personally don't think it would be disrespectful to honor and commemorate them after an untimely passing it the continuation of her business were done as such. Artists like others sometimes pass prematurely and their work continues to live on. This is common in music. The situation depends on the person. __________________ You deserve to make more money. I'll help you do that. Our affiliates earn up to $3/email or $107/sale email steve <at> eroticy.com - icq 290153464

12-20-2005, 11:02 AM	#54
Theo HAL 9000 Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 34,515	so what's the right reason if not the money? I understand your concern, but I don't see how they really affect them, unless they search all day for nude pics of their daughter online. If they were not proud for their daughter decision to work in pornography is another thing takes a lot of discussion. Personally if you tell me they failed to accept it I would tell you they do not deserve to have another last testament of her life either.

12-20-2005, 11:30 AM	#63
CynthiaB Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: The OC Posts: 1,274	At first, I thought yes, you should remove a site but then I thought about what others said - about mainstream actresses and singers who passed away. The best comparision would be, I suppose, a mainstream model's site - would you close that if she died? I guess I'm not sure how being an adult model makes the difference in this scenario. If her family came in and objected, then I'd take it down to meet their wishes. If they don't know or don't care - I'd probably leave it up - with no updates, I assume it would fade out over time anyway. . . Cyn

12-20-2005, 11:33 AM	#66
Theo HAL 9000 Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 34,515	I didn't think of it like that. If its the profit in the middle I can tell you I would donate all the earnings to their family, if there was a need of it but I wouldnt take the site down. I would treat it the exact say way if there was a contract discontinue. btw, this is personal opinion, not DA policy and I wish none of us will be in such dillema

12-20-2005, 11:34 AM	#67
slapass Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Earth Posts: 14,625	While I intellectually agree with Sly. If the family asked or in anyway implied they wanted the site closed. I guess I would. I do not need money that badly. I think all of us who are at introspective have to wonder if we are making cash off of misery. The fact that many models come here and post is helpful. At least some of them just view this as a business.

12-20-2005, 01:55 PM	#74
X37375787 Guest Posts: n/a	I think the site should stay up to honor the dead, but all profits off the site should go to close ones and relatives. I think profitting off a dead porn model where she is exposing her nude body (which is no longer with us) is a little distasteful. Comparing it to painter's works is a little bit different in my opinion.

12-20-2005, 02:50 PM	#76
Ron Bennett Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 1,653	Taken down? ... no way! If anything, work the site harder ... and try to salvage as much as one can before the content runs out... Though it would be considerate to explain to members that due to unforeseen circumstances (or get specific about what happened, if one feels that's appropriate) there will be little to no new content available... In regards to the future of the site, the webmaster could do one or more of the following to maintain a revenue stream... 1. Setup / partner with some other sites and refer the paid members to them. 2. Basically do nothing... just keep collect the remaining rebills each month until they trickle down to zero. 3. Find another model and simply rebrand the site; most of the "rebills" won't mind (some may not even notice a difference) if the new model is hot too. This is business ... the model did it for money ... so it's only fair for the website operator to recoup their investment; maximize profits. Ron __________________ Domagon - Website Management and Domain Name Sales

12-20-2005, 03:36 PM	#78
fitzmulti I Like Depth Of Field! Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA: 36.12318 N, 115.090219 W Posts: 14,861	[QUOTE=Sly] Is anybody asking for Britney Madison's content to be taken down? She is ALL over the place, along with several other models that have passed on.[QUOTE] Exactly! Noone has, with Britney's or Julie Robbins, and everything has been worked out, as I stated sbove. Taking the sites down for a time, and then restructuring them as to not imply the girls were still alive, etc...example: "E-Mail Me Personally", or "See Me Live On Cam-Chat"-type things are all removed. Now, realizing that these two examples are a bit different due to their popularity and porn careers, I would say that for example a new model, whose family would maybe be upset it would be the right choice to remove the site... The bottom line is however, that as far back as models and model releases go...the girls know (or should know) what they are signing and doing. They are the ones that make the choice for this work - for whatever reasons they have - and the industry itself isn't :doing anything" to their family...if the family would be so upset AFTER the model passed awy, would they not have been equally as upset when the model was alive? The model made the decision to do the work...and if her family WAS an issue, she knew that beforehand. Fitz __________________ www.SexyGirlsCash.com CONTACT // FITZMULTI AT GMAIL.COM // {Please include a message so I know you are from GFY! I get too many spam "add requests"!} Last edited by fitzmulti; 12-20-2005 at 03:37 PM..