In February, just before Fashion Week, a huge blizzard had the nerve
to blanket this city in heaps of frozen precipitation, whipped up and
swirled around by a merciless wind before settling in daunting heaps in
places the fashion crowd would have to walk.
Vogue
and Annie Leibovitz realized the icy spectacle would make a really
pretty picture, and so Karlie Kloss was thrust forth into the icy
madness, wearing nothing more than a bathing suit for a story called "Seasons of Our Discontent."
If you thought she submitted to that torture because they paid her
handsomely, think again!
Because however much you would want for
standing out in that weather wearing almost nothing is probably not what
she made.
Condé Nast is known for not paying models who appear in its magazines very much.
Recent documents associated with the $3.75 million lawsuit
filed by models formerly represented by
Next against the agency reveal
how much top girls might earn on various jobs. A sheet listing payments
owed to Anna Jagodzinska reveals a $125 billing for a French Vogue shoot and a $250 billing for an American Vogue
job. So Karlie probably made somewhere around there for that glorious
half-naked blizzard shoot. But editorials are merely the jobs that help
models land advertisements, which is where they make real money.
Documentation reveals Jagodzinska was owed, for example, $60,000 for an
H&M ad and $172,500 from Grey Paris, a company that makes ads for
luxury labels. In the lawsuit, she seeks $320,000 to make up for
earnings she alleges Next never paid her, plus $1 million in damages.
What Vogue Actually Pays Its Models [Jezebel]
