Unfortunately the end result is still the same. Because the image is on multiple sites if IS chased this they would have been wasting their time which I'm guessing is a major reason they decided not to pursue it.

Why would IS be "wasting their time" because the image is on 'multiple sites' (actually just 2) but SS do not consider that to be a waste of their time? It seems to me from what I've read on other forum threads that IS can barely be bothered to lift a finger even for their exclusive contributors.

In total contrast SS have chased similar causes, got the money from the buyers (including on a couple of occasions a 'fine') and passed on the value of the EL + fine to the contributors ... without the contributors even being aware of the inappropriate use. I've had the money for 5 EL's that way.

Because it may cost IS more to pursue the infringement than what they would recover from it and if the image is on 10 or 20 sites the odds it was purchased from them is fairly slim. And again, in this case if they assigned a customer service rep to spend a day or even few days chasing this they would have lost money because they didn't even sell the image.

I'm not saying I agree with the level of support provided but from a business standpoint this is why I'm guessing they decided not to pursue it. Maybe IS doesn't care. Maybe Shutterstock can profitably recover infringements. Or maybe it's not profitable and Shutterstock is willing to lose money to maintain good contributor relations. Who knows...

Thanks for the acknowledgement of the misread.  And I think you are right--IS is making a judgement call, as is SS.  I reported, I think fairly, about the differences in response.  As I said earlier, I believed that there was an equal chance that it came from one site or the other.  As it turned out, this is one of the biggest publishers in the US and uses both sites--I assume extensively.  I would guess they both have customer service people assigned to the account and it would have taken at most a couple of phone calls, not days of time. 

What is apparent is that the two sites have different policies.  Personally, I thought it was important to report the difference. 

Because it may cost IS more to pursue the infringement than what they would recover from it and if the image is on 10 or 20 sites the odds it was purchased from them is fairly slim. And again, in this case if they assigned a customer service rep to spend a day or even few days chasing this they would have lost money because they didn't even sell the image.

I'm not saying I agree with the level of support provided but from a business standpoint this is why I'm guessing they decided not to pursue it. Maybe IS doesn't care. Maybe Shutterstock can profitably recover infringements. Or maybe it's not profitable and Shutterstock is willing to lose money to maintain good contributor relations. Who knows...

No, that's not why they didn't pursue it.  Not sure if you saw my post, but I had a case of misuse where the buyer ADMITTED they got the image from Istock. They had a corporate account, and all the stock images on their TV show and website were from Istock.   Istock still didn't pursue it AT ALL.  Never heard back from them after the form reply to my initial inquiry.  I had to pay a lawyer $1,100 out of my own pocket to resolve the issue.  

I have seen similar posts from exclusives.  Unless you are a TOP selling exclusive or an admin of some sort at Istock, you are SOL in the case of misuse of your images.  Sorry to dispel any lingering illusions about Istock's level of commitment to enforcing their licenses.