Actually you can even leave it on IS and sell it RM where ever you want.
You can choose to deactivate it if you wish.
IS exclusivity is for RF only.

Thank you. So you are all saying that even if I am exclusive with iStock I can sell any or all of my images on iStock as Rights Managed elsewhere as well? And this means whether I deactivate them or not?

Thank you. So you are all saying that even if I am exclusive with iStock I can sell any or all of my images on iStock as Rights Managed elsewhere as well? And this means whether I deactivate them or not?

No.

"The Supplier wishes to appoint iStockphoto as its exclusive agent to license, sublicense and distribute Exclusive Content ... (which) ... means, as applicable to Supplier, ... Photo Content ... but shall not include ... Content that is "Rights Managed", which is defined as Content produced by the Supplier and licensed for a fee that is based on one or more limited uses and for which usage history is tracked;"

It's an either/or thing.  Either you submit it and only license through IS, or you don't, and license RM.

Also, there's nothing in the "agreement" about removal making something "non-exclusive content" anymore. 

The belief is that rejections are "exclusive content", and are unable to be licensed elsewhere, although reading the ASA, it seems as if they don't accept it, then it isn't "accepted exclusive content" - it's a tough read:
"The Supplier will provide Exclusive Content to iStockphoto using the Upload procedures and policies of the Site or such other procedures and policies as the parties may mutually agree. iStockphoto, in its sole discretion, may determine which of such Exclusive Content is suitable for posting on the Site or other means of direct or indirect distribution, and only such Exclusive Content as it deems suitable will be considered "Accepted Exclusive Content" for the purposes of applicable provisions of this Agreement. "

Thanks. But what you are saying is very different than the first 2 answers. Now I am confused as to which is correct. But none of iStock's agreement's extend to Rights Managed. So I am not sure about all this. If you take the image off from iStock then why can't you sell it as Rights Managed? Their agreement only extends to images for sale on iStock.

Sorry, I modded my post above.  There's nothing in the ASA about making "exclusive content" RM-able by deactivating it.  The convention is that it is ok to do that, though.  I'm just pointing out how tough it is to read the legalese.

Thanks. But what you are saying is very different than the first 2 answers. Now I am confused as to which is correct. But none of iStock's agreement's extend to Rights Managed. So I am not sure about all this. If you take the image off from iStock then why can't you sell it as Rights Managed? Their agreement only extends to images for sale on iStock.

Also to any rejected images.
You can request to be allowed to submit them RM via CR, but it depends who you get what they say.

I'm just pointing out how tough it is to read the legalese.

And even tougher to interpret it.
Not only can there be debate amongst contributors whenever an issue like this comes up, like I said above, you can get very different responses depending which member of the contributor relations you get.

On a request to have a rejected file 'released' to submit as RM, I've had at least these responses that I can remember offhand:

"You don't need to ask, just submit to the RM site"
"Yes"
"Why not submit as RM first, and if rejected there, submit here as RF"
"No, that's impossible. You must decide in advance for a whole shoot whether the images from the shoot will be RM or RF".
(The latter reading dangerously like Mind Police)

I'm positive that it's quite deliberate that they make the legalese so fuzzy. Means they can do whatever they want but keep us in an iron grip. As soon as I got onto the site, I asked for it to be rewritten in Plain English. I realise that Canadians can't be made to write their stuff in Plain English, but it would be a courtesy to those of us who have more-or-less English (e.g. Standard Scots English, US English) as a first language, but much more so for those whose first language is other than the languages used on iStock.
The way it is now, they can apparently change the ASA to suit them at will, without 30 days' notice and apparently having been breaking it for many years.

[Off-topic] Sean - do you never, ever sleep?

Thanks for all that. Sadly it seems I am not any closer to a solid answer than when I posed the question. But still iStock must have a legal position on this and it has to be binding the same upon all contributors. You can't have an agreement with suppliers and it be open to interpretation on a case by case basis.

Thanks for all that. Sadly it seems I am not any closer to a solid answer than when I posed the question. But still iStock must have a legal position on this and it has to be binding the same upon all contributors. You can't have an agreement with suppliers and it be open to interpretation on a case by case basis.

Being as you seem uncertain about the future markets for your work (let alone the legal issues appertaining)your best option would probably be to remain independent. Do you really want to commit so heavily to a business partner with a one-sided agreement so open to interpretation and which, according to recent history, they might change at any time without notice?

Apart from anything else sales at iStock appear to have been in steady decline for many months judging by the many threads on the subject here. This is hardly to time to put all your eggs in the iStock basket.

Rejections have always been considered 'exclusive property".  I've been here since 2003 and there was considerable uproar that we could not use rejected files for anything.  I've seen nothing that has changed that.

You can sell any active image as RM however you can.  As mentioned some agencies will not accept files that have been RF into RM.