iStock closed my account, because I'm from "Iran".

[Lightrecorder]

Iran has a democratically elected government as far as I'm aware. The present government and their policies are the product of the settled will of the population of Iran are they not?

If those policies happen to be so against those of Western countries (also democratically elected) that said Western countries choose to not trade, and/or impose sanctions against them ... then that is essentially the choice the population of Iran made when they elected their government.

If you deliberately pursue policies against the interests of your trading partners then don't be surprised if later they choose not to trade with you.

I have no idea what the political leanings of the OP are but, for example, if he had enthusiastically voted for and cheered for the government that caused this crisis with the West ... then  it would be difficult to find sympathy for his plight.

You can't on one hand declare your hated for the West whilst on the other seek to benefit from their institutions and the opportunities they provide.

You must be  incredibly ignorant judging by this comment

That's easy for you to say __ probably beyond your capabilities to justify it however. I think it is far more 'ignorant' to call someone's comment ignorant without explaining why. Please do enlighten us with your wisdom regarding the relationship between Iran and the West.

Your first line shows your ignorance. If you even say or think differently, anything other than pro government, you disappear. Democracy out of fear for never seeing your kids again. Thats not a democracy in my book.

[ShadySue]

Iran has a democratically elected government as far as I'm aware. The present government and their policies are the product of the settled will of the population of Iran are they not?

http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/iran-new-briefing-reveals-crackdown-dissent-ahead-election-2013-06-12
etc etc etc
Google is your friend.

I have no idea what the political leanings of the OP are but, for example, if he had enthusiastically voted for and cheered for the government that caused this crisis with the West ... then  it would be difficult to find sympathy for his plight.

What did the email on October 7, 2014 say?  Did you have two accounts?

Yep. We're obviously not being told the whole story here.
As Baruch Spinoza observed "No matter how thin you slice it, there will always be two sides"

You seem particularly determined to side against the OP.
Given the lack of Lobo's appearance with a counter-claim, and given that no-one has so far come up with an extant iS account from a contributor based in Iran, it is not 'obvious' that we weren't being told the whole story.

[ShadySue]

Just because you can vote a country is not a democracy.

Even in a free democracy, exercising your vote doesn't necessarily mean that you agree with all the policies of the party you voted for. Certainly no one party here 'ticks all my boxes' (sorry for the clich�), I just have to vote for the 'nearest fit'.

[Beppe Grillo]

^
You can vote for who you want it will not change absolutely nothing.
It is GodMoney* commanding here�


*Federal Bank, Rockefeller, Rothschild and friends�

[PixelBytes]

Iranian democracy is an odd beast, Gostwyck.  It's the sort of democracy that the UK might have if the Church of England was allowed to vet all political parties and candidates and reject any it didn't like, and where Parliament and Premier could be over-ruled by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Since this is going political, I'll add a few things: back in 2005 or 2006 (can't remember exactly) Mossad revealed that if Iran wasn't bombed immediately it would unquestionably have a nuclear bomb within 18 months. This information seems to be what prompted Gulf Arab states to set up their own "peaceful nuclear programme" - as we all know, peaceful nuclear programmes are what is needed to deter regional rivals who are about to get nuclear bombs. In the event, the 18 months passed without Iran getting bombed (to Israel's annoyance) and without it getting nuclear weapons either. A decade later it still does not seem to have any weapons-grade enriched uraniam and has converted a lot of its lower-grade enriched U into a form which prevents it being used in weapons (they always said it was for medical equipment). Meanwhile, nobody is talking about the "peaceful" Saudi/GCC nuclear programme, though Riyadh has nuclear co-operation deals with the US, China and Pakistan and is also rumoured to have an agreement with Islamabad to take delivery of a nuke or two any time it feels the need. If ISIS were ever to topple Al Saud and extend the Caliphate into the Arabian Peninsula I suspect we would hear lots of shocking stories along the same lines as those told about Iran.

For those who say that Arab oil powers don't need to go nuclear, it's worth remembering that the US was desperate to install nuclear power plants all over Iran when the Shah was in power, and would tell anybody who asked that it was stupid to waste oil making electricity when you could do the same with atomic power - exactly the opposite of what they say today.

I don't know if Iran wants a nuclear bomb. Back in the Cold War we had wise policies of Mutually Assured Destruction and suchlike keeping the peace between Russia and the West. I don't doubt that Iran regards nuclear-armed Israel as being as much of a threat to it as the US thought the USSR was 30 years ago.  I do know that the Ayatollahs in Qom, who direct Iranian policy, have never shown any desire for an early meeting with Allah as a result of a military miscalculation. For that reason, I'm not particularly worried about Iran getting nukes, it might even improve stability by making Israel think twice before using excessive force against neighbouring states. The nutters in the North Korean and Pakistani military, who already have their hands on nukes, are much more scary than the cooly calculating old men who run Iran.

There's so much in nuclear foreign policy that makes no sense at all that it is clearly a smokescreen for something else. How can it not be a problem for Pakistan to have nukes, when bin Laden was allowed to hide for years just a couple of hundred yards from a major Pakistani Army base? And when the raid that killed him didn't cause Islamabad to ask how he could hide there, it made them mad about traitors allowing the Yanks to get to him (a high treason trial followed against a doctor who helped the US). It's okay for Saudi to plan for 16 civilian reactors by 2030 but not for Iran to have any - and that's despite the involvement of Saudis in Al Qaeda and Isis, while Iran has no links with terrorist acts against the West  (with the likely exception of the Lockerbie bombing, which was probably retaliation for the US shooting down an Iranian civil airliner shortly before).

And all this leads to some poor bugger getting an iStock account closed.

Very informative post.   Thank you for taking the time to share such a comprehensive overview.

[Milleflore]

One of the reasons (although obviously not all) why USA is enforcing sanctions against Iran is to protect Israeli interests and to maintain stability in the Middle East. Israel and Iraq are long time enemies of Iran, and if Iran nukes up, then all hell could potentially break lose in the Middle East.

As for the injustice of nukes being in the hands of the USA but not others, I personally would prefer that there were no nukes, but at the very least best in the hands of true democracies. Iran, as many have mentioned above, is definitely not a democracy. Its pretty much one sided and under the control of the Ayatollah.

But all this aside, how can we help the OP? If leaving your country is not an option (and why should it be), perhaps you just have to consider going independent and uploading to those sites that have no political biases in this matter.

[Milleflore]

On a lighter note, this whole discussion reminds me of a very funny cartoon on YouTube that pretty much sums it all up. (Warning contains explicit language.)

The End of the World

[DF_Studios]

At some point people have to take responsibility for their own governing.   If you want to share in the wealth of the modern world then act like your part of this century.

[Beppe Grillo]

I personally would prefer that there were no nukes, but at the very least best in the hands of true democracies. Iran, as many have mentioned above, is definitely not a democracy.

Till today only one country in the world has used the atomic bomb against people, and this country pretend to export/impose (most of the time using the force)  his model of democracy�  So, tell me what is a true democracy?

[Milleflore]

I personally would prefer that there were no nukes, but at the very least best in the hands of true democracies. Iran, as many have mentioned above, is definitely not a democracy.

Till today only one country in the world has used the atomic bomb against people, and this country pretend to export/impose (most of the time using the force)  his model of democracy�  So, tell me what is a true democracy?

In truth there is no such thing as a true democracy but those that strive towards that, have the force of their people to answer to, and as such, make 'saner' decisions. Albeit, not always .. and as you have pointed out, some that many don't agree with, as with enforcing the end to WWII.

If you are voting me down because you think I am pro-USA, then you need to watch that YouTube video I posted ... which pretty much sums up what Australians really think lol

On the other hand, the way I look at it is, if the USA were not the self-appointed Leaders of the Free World, than who would be? Perhaps we should think about that. Perhaps its a matter of better the devil we know, than the devil we dont.

[Noedelhap]

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

iStock's EASA
11 a "... Stockphoto may ... terminate this Agreement ... for any reason by giving you thirty (30) days notice by e-mail at the last address contained in your membership information. ..."
(as contributors can)

Sorry but you are quoting the highest legal agreement of them all, the one all others agreements including LAWS have to follow, and no reason is good enough legally to confront declaration of human rights especially not terms of a company.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights


 

How is the Universal Declaration relevant? OP still has the right to work, just not with iStock, unfortunately for him.
Besides, this has to do with a partnership, not employment.

[BaldricksTrousers]

Israel and Iraq are long time enemies of Iran, and if Iran nukes up, then all hell could potentially break lose in the Middle East.

Iraq USED to be an enemy of Iran, but by toppling Saddam and introducing elections into the Shia majority country Bush made it part of the Iranian sphere of influence.  That's the reason ISIS has managed to split the country and I'm sure its a major reason for the Syrian war (the Shia arc of influence from the Indian Ocean to the Med, once Iran, Iraq and Syria were all on the same side being too much for Saudi and the West to swallow).
"Democratic countries" is really just a synonym for "the West", since almost every time democracy rears its ugly head in countries that aren't culturally Western the US and its friends step in to chop that head off. The US and UK toppled the democratic government of Mosaddeq in Iran in 1953 (he wanted Iran to own its own oil) and transformed the Shah into a dictator. In Algeria, the West prevented the FIS taking power, triggering a decade of civil war that killed 200,000 people (more than so far in Syria, but the Western media showed no interest at all in that). In Palestine, Israel and the US did everything possible to drive out Hamas, after it won a free and fair election. In Egypt the West backed Field Marshal Sisi's coup against the fairly elected Muslim Brotherhood government. In Iraq, the US has pushed out the President and installed a replacement who fits more with their idea of what the Iraqi leader should be like.... and then there is South America.

Democracy is simply a system designed to provide a stable environment for the countries it evolved in and it works because you and I and the political elite have been brought up with a set of unwritten rules - such as not attempting to physically annihilate the opposition if you have got power - that aren't part of the culture of other societies.  It isn't democracy that makes the West take what you consider to be "saner" decisions, it's an outcome of a way of thinking that has developed over centuries.

[YadaYadaYada]

@Ramin: What did the October 7 email say?

When the politics and hate take a break, we never got an answer to the question. What did theOctober 7 email said? We don't have the answer that started a political war on an assumed guess.

[Lizard]

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

iStock's EASA
11 a "... Stockphoto may ... terminate this Agreement ... for any reason by giving you thirty (30) days notice by e-mail at the last address contained in your membership information. ..."
(as contributors can)

Sorry but you are quoting the highest legal agreement of them all, the one all others agreements including LAWS have to follow, and no reason is good enough legally to confront declaration of human rights especially not terms of a company.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights


 

How is the Universal Declaration relevant? OP still has the right to work, just not with iStock, unfortunately for him.
Besides, this has to do with a partnership, not employment.

Are you for real?  Certain company dumps a person from "partnership" and the only reason is his nationality or place where he lives?

What does it have to do with human rights you ask?

Well it reminded me of a case where certain ethnic group couldn't use a public bus, well, actually they could only they had to stick at the back.

I bet at that time you would say...unfortunately for them...but they can still ride at the back.

Besides,it has to do with human spirit inside a person not with a law book 
 

[BaldricksTrousers]

@Ramin: What did the October 7 email say?

When the politics and hate take a break, we never got an answer to the question. What did theOctober 7 email said? We don't have the answer that started a political war on an assumed guess.

In reply 46 he said he never received the promised e-mail of October 7.

I'm not sure where the political war is - all I see is different perspectives that people have.

[YadaYadaYada]

@Ramin: What did the October 7 email say?

When the politics and hate take a break, we never got an answer to the question. What did theOctober 7 email said? We don't have the answer that started a political war on an assumed guess.

In reply 46 he said he never received the promised e-mail of October 7.

I'm not sure where the political war is - all I see is different perspectives that people have.

All of this is based on a guess, including the personal attacks about politics? Never got the email. Didn't do anything wrong. No reason. Just assumes he knows and starts accusing the reason. Some more start guessing it's the fault of the US. Now we talk nukes and politics not the question why the account was closed?

[BaldricksTrousers]

@Ramin: What did the October 7 email say?

When the politics and hate take a break, we never got an answer to the question. What did theOctober 7 email said? We don't have the answer that started a political war on an assumed guess.

In reply 46 he said he never received the promised e-mail of October 7.

I'm not sure where the political war is - all I see is different perspectives that people have.

All of this is based on a guess, including the personal attacks about politics? Never got the email. Didn't do anything wrong. No reason. Just assumes he knows and starts accusing the reason. Some more start guessing it's the fault of the US. Now we talk nukes and politics not the question why the account was closed?

Apparently the name of Iran has been expunged from the country list and other accounts from there seem to have been closed too, which - if true -  makes it a political action not a violation of the terms and conditions. The only obvious reason for Iran-based contributors suddenly being dumped and the country's name being deleted is that there are international sanctions against Iran because of its nuclear programme.

[gostwyck]

Your first line shows your ignorance. If you even say or think differently, anything other than pro government, you disappear. Democracy out of fear for never seeing your kids again. Thats not a democracy in my book.

Vapid nonsense as usual from you. Stating 'facts' without any sources or relevance to the topic. Isn't it about time you 'regenerated' yourself again with yet another user name to cover your tracks?

[Hobostocker]

from today's BBC :

Russia to build Iran atomic reactors at Bushehr
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-30015464

Russia has agreed to build up to eight nuclear reactors in Iran, 12 days before a deadline for a deal to curb Iran's nuclear activity.

[Hobostocker]

But all this aside, how can we help the OP? If leaving your country is not an option (and why should it be), perhaps you just have to consider going independent and uploading to those sites that have no political biases in this matter.

all he can do is finding a way to open a bank account in any EU country or at least in Turkey or in a Gulf state, maybe he has a relative living in Dubai or whatever .. of course it must be somebody he can trust 100%.

there are online companies doing this dodgy business of opening fake US or EU bank accounts but they're all scams as far as i know.

said that, tourists can open legitimate bank accounts in several asian countries, for instance HongKong, Singapore, Malaysia, Cambodia, and maybe also Macau.

however, if IS is banning accounts just for being an Iranian national this won't help and he will need somebody else to open an account for him.

last chance, opening an LLC company in HongKong, will take just 7 days and costs a pittance, you don't need to be a resident, same goes for UK and Switzerland and many other places, i guess Dubai is his best option for these things.

in any case there's plenty of options for him as long as the amount of cash coming in is worth the hassle of these legal loopholes.

[Hobostocker]

Israel and Iraq are long time enemies of Iran, and if Iran nukes up, then all hell could potentially break lose in the Middle East.

Iran's only friends are Sirya and Russia and don't worry, nobody will dare moving a finger against Iran anytime soon, especially Israel and Pakistan.

Once Iran becomes a full member of SCO it will be game over for the US/Israel warmongering plans, actually Putin already talked about this topic making clear that Iran is untouchable and is a strategic partner, that means "don't F-u-ck with Iran or else ..."

[Beppe Grillo]

I personally would prefer that there were no nukes, but at the very least best in the hands of true democracies. Iran, as many have mentioned above, is definitely not a democracy.

Till today only one country in the world has used the atomic bomb against people, and this country pretend to export/impose (most of the time using the force)  his model of democracy�  So, tell me what is a true democracy?

In truth there is no such thing as a true democracy but those that strive towards that, have the force of their people to answer to, and as such, make 'saner' decisions. Albeit, not always .. and as you have pointed out, some that many don't agree with, as with enforcing the end to WWII.

If you are voting me down because you think I am pro-USA, then you need to watch that YouTube video I posted ... which pretty much sums up what Australians really think lol

On the other hand, the way I look at it is, if the USA were not the self-appointed Leaders of the Free World, than who would be? Perhaps we should think about that. Perhaps its a matter of better the devil we know, than the devil we dont.

No, I vote you up because agree with your point of view.
Only one point I don't really agree, the one about the end of WWII. Yes in Europe we have to thanks Americans, Canadians, Australians for their contribution, but I think that the part of Russia is absolutely not to neglect too, and that without Russia, even with the help of USA & C., the war was lost for Europe. But of course things went in another way and we cannot really know.

[Lightrecorder]

Your first line shows your ignorance. If you even say or think differently, anything other than pro government, you disappear. Democracy out of fear for never seeing your kids again. Thats not a democracy in my book.

Vapid nonsense as usual from you. Stating 'facts' without any sources or relevance to the topic. Isn't it about time you 'regenerated' yourself again with yet another user name to cover your tracks?

The majority here thinks you have it wrong, not just me. the fact that you choose to attack instead of focus on the fact you have it wrong speaks volumes. Judging from your comments, you seem to have beef with more people, maybe its time to face the mirror.

[Milleflore]

I personally would prefer that there were no nukes, but at the very least best in the hands of true democracies. Iran, as many have mentioned above, is definitely not a democracy.

Till today only one country in the world has used the atomic bomb against people, and this country pretend to export/impose (most of the time using the force)  his model of democracy�  So, tell me what is a true democracy?

In truth there is no such thing as a true democracy but those that strive towards that, have the force of their people to answer to, and as such, make 'saner' decisions. Albeit, not always .. and as you have pointed out, some that many don't agree with, as with enforcing the end to WWII.

If you are voting me down because you think I am pro-USA, then you need to watch that YouTube video I posted ... which pretty much sums up what Australians really think lol

On the other hand, the way I look at it is, if the USA were not the self-appointed Leaders of the Free World, than who would be? Perhaps we should think about that. Perhaps its a matter of better the devil we know, than the devil we dont.

No, I vote you up because agree with your point of view.
Only one point I don't really agree, the one about the end of WWII. Yes in Europe we have to thanks Americans, Canadians, Australians for their contribution, but I think that the part of Russia is absolutely not to neglect too, and that without Russia, even with the help of USA & C., the war was lost for Europe. But of course things went in another way and we cannot really know.

I agree with you that Russia, as with all the allies, were a very important contribution to the end of WWII in Europe. However my comments above were in reference to your earlier point: "Till today only one country in the world has used the atomic bomb against people" ... I was assuming that you meant USA dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to force Japan to surrender and thus finally putting an end to WWII in the Pacific as well. That's what I meant by "[USA] enforcing the end to WWII."