Closed subject

[Ranker]

I am not Ron, or any of those names.

Reply three says he WAS exclusive. I guess past tense may have been lost in translation then. Seems to happen more often lately.

Furthermore, IS booted him out for copyright infringement.

[ShadySue]

I am not Ron, or any of those names.

Reply three says he WAS exclusive. I guess past tense may have been lost in translation then. Seems to happen more often lately.

He couldn't use the present tense, I AM exclusive, as he isn't there at present.

[Ranker]

Semantics

[ShadySue]

Semantics

"I was exculusive constribitor in istock.
My assistant opened an account on shutter unware me. Assistant sent 10 of my works to get a fast confirmation.. After getting the confirmation she doesn't upload anything and doesn't logged in...I didn't know that until you send me that email. She doesn't knew that it is a mistake what she did and that's the reason why she doesn't asked me for permission...  :/"
Clearly the OP isn't a native English speaker (and is doing far better in English than I could do in French), and probably something is being lost in translation.
However, from their post #3 quoted in italics, it looks as though the OP was exclusive in iS, the assistant sent work to SS "not knowing it was a mistake". How could it be a 'mistake' if the OP wasn't exclusive? Indies can send images wherever they like.

[Ranker]

Because they closed his account for copyright infringement and not for breaking the exclusivity agreement.

From IStock CIA

It has come to our attention that you have submitted content in your iStock portfolio that is not your sole copyright. Misrepresenting ownership is grounds for immediate termination, therefore this shall serve as formal notice of your account closure. As per the ASA Section 11 c: we will retain any royalties in your account to offset any administrative cost that have been or may be incurred due to this activity.

Sounds to me the exclusivity was never in question by IS.

[bunhill]

Almost always there is more to these stories than we get from the threads in my experience.

[ShadySue]

Yes but i deleted all my photos on shutterstock.
If i upload someone else's work.. i cant to delete.. ?

So, if I'm understanding ...
You had your own photos on Shutterstock while exclusive on iStock.
AND
You had uploaded someone else's work?

[Dook]

Hi didn't upload someone else's work. His work was uploaded by someone else(his assistent). The copyright infringement was spotted by , lets's say Svanga, or someone else here and Istock took action.
Probably he uploaded the work under assistent's, or who ever she is, name. He wanted to have SS account just in case something goes wrong with exclusivity, which is completely reasonable I think. The only mistake he made is he didn't know that those ten go live automatically if you pass. He just wanted to have account opened. Hard to explain to IS now.
This is all a guess.

[Sean Locke Photography]

Honestly, who would spot 10 images out of 10 million?  IS is not that smart.

[Ranker]

Exactly, he's been reported, but you would expect an agency to ask questions first before taking action.

[bunhill]

Exactly, he's been reported, but you would expect an agency to ask questions first before taking action.

Maybe s/he is one of the people called out here Ron.

Nice to see you back btw.

ETA: I think that most people here would support sites taking action against potential copyright violations. We're always moaning about piracy etc. So it is good to see that it is taken notice of.

[Ranker]

I am not Ron, but since there is so much confusion I will get another username.

[bunhill]

Ok Not-Ron

[Noedelhap]

Weird story. I assume there's more to the story. Who was this assistant? An employee, a business partner? Why would she think that opening an account with SS would be smart if those images were exclusively on IS? What steps did the OP take against his assistant and why does he assume he could reopen an account on IS after such a breach of the TOS?

It wouldn't surprise me if there was no assistant at all, and he's just making it sound like he wasn't to blame.

[Holmes]

sorry to hear about this

i am surprised IS found your ten images on SS. you should have deleted them immediately from SS when accepted and then start uploading new content with different look like using wide angle macro etc...

not buying "assistant" story. either did IS.

busted for sloppy follow-through.

[duayenist]

...

[duayenist]

...

[ARTPUPPY]

I guess I'll chip in here - I think what he's getting at is this: Duayenist was an exclusive with istock and only uploaded his images there. His assistant opened up a shutterstock account and uploaded some of his istock images and in a different name/ID (and possibly copyright) without his knowledge. Somehow Istock discovered the shutterstock account and came to the conclusion that some of these images might be from another photographer. At that point istock goes into "Shut em Down" mode and deleted Duayenist's account and took whatever money he had as "Administrative Costs". That's istock's policy since it tells it's customers it will stand by and guarantee that any exclusive image it buys original and owned by an istock contributor. The customer doesn't have to worry about being sued down the road for using stolen images since an istock image is an original image. I'm afraid to say that Duayenist has now become radioactive waste in istock's eyes and won't ever deal with you again. You have become to them a legal liability and risk. I guess you can try to appeal but I don't think istock will care. You're only hope is to switch to another distributor/sell it yourself, and take your assistant to court and try to claim damages for acting without your consent.

[Difydave]

As bunhill says above there's often more to these cases than meets the eye.
The OP had their account closed for copyright infringement according to the email. Not, as far as I can see, for breach of exclusivity, unless I've missed something.
If simply having the same images at different agencies under different user names was seen as a potential copyright problem, then surely an awful lot of independents would be in trouble?
Whatever the case then it will be up to the OP to actually prove that there was no copyright and / or contract breach. I doubt very much whether just saying that his assistant was to blame will be seen as "proof"   

[Digital66]

First Duayenist, now Yenist...

What's (was) your name at iStock? and at Shutterstock?

[cidepix]

too many responses for too little information..

the OP could post his images here and we can see if there is a copyright violation, which I think is the reason for him being banned..

this issue has nothing to do with exclusivity.. as Sean said, IS is not that smart to spot 10 images out of millions on shutterstock..

[Uncle Pete]

Would have been interesting to see what images and accounts actually caused this. Unfortunately someone pulled the plug on the whole thread so we only have a partial version minus details.

About that other part Tick, Rancor? Shouldn't it have been spelled Wanker? 

If he is not exclusive, and from the email I gather thats not the case,

Reply #3 above says that he was exclusive.

IS jumped the gun, without asking questions. Disgrace.

Looks like Rancor (AKA Ron, Ponke, Ponke V2, Lightrecorder, etc... etc.. etc...) jumped the gun or more accurately went off the rails without reading what was posted.

[Beppe Grillo]

I am not Ron, but since there is so much confusion I will get another username.

It is not a question of username, but a question of style��

____________
(Ranker� sounds like french "Ranc�ur"�)