Alejandra Guilmant

[selyoink]

Incredible body

[vishuper]

Thanks. She's one of the hottest model nowdays

[tommydp8]

Spoiler

 

Nudity

Treats! Magazine (Unseen photos) 

I don't think i have seen them in this thread, if this is a re-post i'm sorry guys! She is so wonderful that i hope you don't mind it! Anyway, enjoy!

 

[Gaiden]

27 minutes ago, tommydp8 said:

  Hide contents

 

Nudity

Treats! Magazine (Unseen photos) 

I don't think i have seen them in this thread, if this is a re-post i'm sorry guys! She is so wonderful that i hope you don't mind it! Anyway, enjoy!

 

oh my...

AMAZING!

[vishu]

thanks a lot to universe for this amazing beauty!

[BrySanFan1]

@tommydp8 Yeah good job getting the thread shut down with the clear disclaimer of legal action on the Patreon page, you do realize these images have been marked when someone downloads them that they can track it right. Thanks for making the exclusive content not so exclusive for those who pay.

[Bloodshot]

3 hours ago, BrySanFan1 said:

@tommydp8 Yeah good job getting the thread shut down with the clear disclaimer of legal action on the Patreon page, you do realize these images have been marked when someone downloads them that they can track it right. Thanks for making the exclusive content not so exclusive for those who pay.

 

Don't tell me you're another one of those confused about how the internet works...

[fatakutta]

5 hours ago, BrySanFan1 said:

@tommydp8 Yeah good job getting the thread shut down with the clear disclaimer of legal action on the Patreon page, you do realize these images have been marked when someone downloads them that they can track it right. Thanks for making the exclusive content not so exclusive for those who pay.

Do you get a high from being a nanny police?

[tommydp8]

If there is an issue, a mod can delete my post. I don't want this amazing thread of Alejandra to be shut down, so if this is the case just delete my post.

I just found them on the internet and i thought to share them with you guys! 

[BrySanFan1]

5 hours ago, fatakutta said:

Do you get a high from being a nanny police?

I’m a patron for this, why shouldn’t I be upset? Then it becomes a case of what’s the point to pay for it? There have been instances that creators have shut down the pages due per leaks of their stuff because someone gets a high out of being a leaker of content. You see up top...Rachel Cook, Genevieve Morton, Anthea Page, and Kesler Tran, good examples of why not to post. Thankfully they haven’t but I know Cherokee Luker did and there are others as well.

[Bloodshot]

2 hours ago, BrySanFan1 said:

I’m a patron for this, why shouldn’t I be upset? Then it becomes a case of what’s the point to pay for it? There have been instances that creators have shut down the pages due per leaks of their stuff because someone gets a high out of being a leaker of content. You see up top...Rachel Cook, Genevieve Morton, Anthea Page, and Kesler Tran, good examples of why not to post. Thankfully they haven’t but I know Cherokee Luker did and there are others as well.

Nobody gets a "high" from posting content, what kind of ridiculous projection is that?  It's no one else's fault that you pay for content that yo don't have to but your own.  Putting content like this behind a paywall in 2020 is an exercise in futility, it's just not a viable business model.  It's kind of like the music industry 20 years ago when everyone was refusing to license content digitally, so then Napster rose up and they all realized that if they didn't get on the bandwagon they were screwed.

[ctrain]

And that's why we can't have good things. Due to short sight, people will always find a way to f.. it up for everyone.

[nyepee]

57 minutes ago, Bloodshot said:

Nobody gets a "high" from posting content, what kind of ridiculous projection is that?  It's no one else's fault that you pay for content that yo don't have to but your own.  Putting content like this behind a paywall in 2020 is an exercise in futility, it's just not a viable business model.  It's kind of like the music industry 20 years ago when everyone was refusing to license content digitally, so then Napster rose up and they all realized that if they didn't get on the bandwagon they were screwed.

However why should people steal from the models and photographers that they claim to be fans of?  This is their work, and how they earn a living.  We should all be respectful of that.

[Bloodshot]

44 minutes ago, nyepee said:

However why should people steal from the models and photographers that they claim to be fans of?  This is their work, and how they earn a living.  We should all be respectful of that.

You can put your head in the sand all you want, but again, this is 2020 and the internet does exist.  I for one have zero interest in ever paying a model for her content no matter how "hot" I may think she is.  In the past models actually worked with agents and managers and found paying jobs that were then supported through advertising campaigns, magazine sales, website clicks, etc. instead of gouging their "fans" directly.  Just like the music industry changed, and the movie/tv industry changed, I don't feel even slightly bad for someone who refuses to use a business model that works in the modern world and hiding basic content like this behind a paywall isn't that model.

[Memento Mori]

4 hours ago, Bloodshot said:

Nobody gets a "high" from posting content, what kind of ridiculous projection is that?  It's no one else's fault that you pay for content that yo don't have to but your own.  Putting content like this behind a paywall in 2020 is an exercise in futility, it's just not a viable business model.  It's kind of like the music industry 20 years ago when everyone was refusing to license content digitally, so then Napster rose up and they all realized that if they didn't get on the bandwagon they were screwed.

 

"People are going to steal anyway, so stealing is morally permissible, even righteous" is a weird thing for someone who isn't a left-wing anarchist to think. So welcome aboard with the revolution brother, I hope to see you at the next meeting.

 

Oh, you're not actually thinking about this that hard, are you, you just want free nudes. I gotcha.

[tommydp8]

Guys, i think we are so out of topic now! If my post violates the terms a mod should delete it.

 

Please, let's get back admiring this wonderful woman!

[Bloodshot]

3 hours ago, Memento Mori said:

 

"People are going to steal anyway, so stealing is morally permissible, even righteous" is a weird thing for someone who isn't a left-wing anarchist to think. So welcome aboard with the revolution brother, I hope to see you at the next meeting.

 

Oh, you're not actually thinking about this that hard, are you, you just want free nudes. I gotcha.

I'm not stealing anything and I don't care one way or the other if anyone else is either.  I'm talking about the fact that trying to keep content like this behind a paywall is a totally futile exercise and I gave you examples as to why.  Plus "theft" of a digital item that you would never have paid for is NOT the same as theft of a physical item where someone is out the cost of those goods.  Which isn't to say that theft is ok, just totally different circumstances.  Instead of being an ideologue making straw man arguments, maybe you should think about what I've said a little deeper.

[BrySanFan1]

"As I am passionate to sharing most of the stuff that would be deemed "offensive, nude, bla bla." needless to say many others including myself are more vulnerable; I suppose some prefer social status of whistle blowing and sharing paid content which isn't fair for everyone else. For those who are "sharing" please consider your actions of others not just your own, goes without saying lots of work and time have been put into providing the best viewing experience." - Kesler Tran on his Patreon

 

[Lasveranza]

There is a point to comparing this with the music industry, but only when it comes to successfull marketing, pricing and getting your product out successfully.

Prices are too high or the targetted group too small or not even knowing there is a product or they just do not like the way/location products are sold? -> you'll sell less

 

Also i would agree there is a difference between stealing a digital goods (the missed out revenue argument used by both industries is at best a fishy one) and physical goods, but you still do not have a "right" to any of them. With the music industry many from the industry saw private use and sharing as kind of marketing and tolerated it, but if you do it too blatantly and with an attitude that you do no wrong, you are wrong. When the artist sees, that you would not buy anyway or they can affort to loose you as potential customer, they will stop tolerating "sharing".

 

With some photographers i would think, that patreon is simply the wrong platform. WIth programmers i have seen it can be a bad thing, since you basically pay for the development as customer up front, which is a new phenomena and not customer-friendly. The content becomes less and less and the price you paid for some breadcrumbs becomes higher and higher (even on 1$ tiers). On the other hand i can not yet see this with photographers, many have good content and release it regularly. Still i think patreon is not the best platform for it, since as customer in effect you pay a monthly fee for just the new releases or you wait and pay once...making the cost per product completely intransparent and variable. It should be a platform for people who are fine with actually kind of being a patron or support someone and not a sales platform. For me it looks more like a shift from selling something to giving away licenses to view. If you rely on it as artist for sales, i am sure it will backfire in the long run.

 

That said, the pictures are awesome and no doubt worth a good price. And afaik, the digital issues of treats are not really that expensive. But look to the patron and you'll see, that the pricing is targetted on on/off subbing, rather than a constant flow or sub. 

[Bloodshot]

3 hours ago, Lasveranza said:

There is a point to comparing this with the music industry, but only when it comes to successfull marketing, pricing and getting your product out successfully.

Prices are too high or the targetted group too small or not even knowing there is a product or they just do not like the way/location products are sold? -> you'll sell less

 

Also i would agree there is a difference between stealing a digital goods (the missed out revenue argument used by both industries is at best a fishy one) and physical goods, but you still do not have a "right" to any of them. With the music industry many from the industry saw private use and sharing as kind of marketing and tolerated it, but if you do it too blatantly and with an attitude that you do no wrong, you are wrong. When the artist sees, that you would not buy anyway or they can affort to loose you as potential customer, they will stop tolerating "sharing".

 

With some photographers i would think, that patreon is simply the wrong platform. WIth programmers i have seen it can be a bad thing, since you basically pay for the development as customer up front, which is a new phenomena and not customer-friendly. The content becomes less and less and the price you paid for some breadcrumbs becomes higher and higher (even on 1$ tiers). On the other hand i can not yet see this with photographers, many have good content and release it regularly. Still i think patreon is not the best platform for it, since as customer in effect you pay a monthly fee for just the new releases or you wait and pay once...making the cost per product completely intransparent and variable. It should be a platform for people who are fine with actually kind of being a patron or support someone and not a sales platform. For me it looks more like a shift from selling something to giving away licenses to view. If you rely on it as artist for sales, i am sure it will backfire in the long run.

 

That said, the pictures are awesome and no doubt worth a good price. And afaik, the digital issues of treats are not really that expensive. But look to the patron and you'll see, that the pricing is targetted on on/off subbing, rather than a constant flow or sub. 

 

You said it far better than I could or did.

 

The only thing that I'll add is that I have no problem with content creators charging fans for early access to something, this is very common with Youtubers.  Many of them use Patreon also and they'll charge an early access fee for videos, sometimes it's just 24 hours, a few times I've seen it up to a month.  Sometimes they also have "exclusive" content, but from what I've seen that's almost exclusively "extras", not their core video product.  If photographers were using Patreon in a similar way I don't think many would complain.  Especially since content with a small digital footprint, i.e. overall file sizes, will ALWAYS get leaked at some point.  Trying to create a business model that fights that is like fighting gravity after a while.