I don't doubt he believes every word of it. But there are some serious inaccuracies and incorrect info. The truth is somewhere in between both sides - if you're interested, hit me up on IM, I can fill you in on details.
It seems highly suspicious that they would send the letter socal references while explaining the opposite in the faq. I noticed the letter on myspace as well and it has been placed there by people with their own agenda, it's followed by some pretty snarky rumour mongering.
I think SG has certainly made some mistakes in the last little while, but I think taking anything at face value right now is risky.
ugh.
I've started to like the journal side of this site. But those types of issues are starting to really concern me. I really don't want to contribute to a site that exploits or bullies.
Hope the truth isn't as dirty as all that.
I agree w/whatAndvari says. The "Anti-SG" movement is nothing but rumors started eg-SGs w/their own agenda and the people that have been suckered into believing it. I refuse to get sucked into the drama again.
I don't believe SG has excusive rights to the models themselves, only to the photo sets submitted to SG. So with that understanding, the models are able to work for other companies and photograpghers. But they can't use the same names that they used on SG.
That seems fair to me, SG is a for profit company and has a right to defend it's resources.
With all these rumors flying around, I do think Missy or Sean need to make a statement explaining what's going on on a thread real soon.
I understand that my side of it isn't the popular thing. Yes it's Anti SG which a lot of people put off as bitter bullshit. Be my guest to look at websites like Findlaw and LexisNexis to look up the SG pending and past lawsuits (yes these are all archived there) to see what kind of petty suits they have going. You will see SG Services INC vs ______ (Ex SG model's real name). Apnea got a summons. So did Katie, Dusty, Penelope, Dia, and others. It doesn't bother me if you don't believe me. Email me at socalsk1nhead@hotmail.com if you want some backup info on what I've posted.
As Andvari said it doesn't say you can model for other sites. If you read further though it says you can't model for sites that are considered a conflict of interest. If you take the contract I posted as truth, then you will see how the girls being sued, as they are now posing for Gods Girls, are violating the conflict of interest clause. Now it says archive yourself first then. Well as a business owner, if your biggest most popular models left the site for a competitor. Especially some of the girls that were your top 5 favorites, how would you take it?
I really don't want to contribute to a site that exploits or bullies. 
~Trilo~