Windows 7 is now available.  Perhaps if you joyfully abandon Vista....

The market is flooded with writers who will write articles for $5 or $10.  The barriers to entry are very low for writers, and there are a lot of English speakers out there who will work for next to nothing, especially those living in less expensive countries.  I spent a year in Thailand and Malaysia doing some of this kind of work.  It's amazing how much more $10 is when it will feed you well for two days, or house you for two days.

Some of the sites pay an upfront fee and keep all revenue, some have a royalty deal, some share ad revenue, and some pay nothing and only share ad revenue.  So if I put an article on something like HubPages and nobody clicks on any ads there, or nobody buys from Amazon or whatever, I get nothing.  But if I write something that stimulates some sort of purchase activity on a regular basis, I get regular income.  

There are a lot of sites out there that pay less and, of course, screen less.  This looks as if it is attempting to get some professional writers.  This is a refinement of a market that has been around for years and years, new because it is attempting to add some quality control.

The photo is absolutely brilliant!  Congratulations!

I suppose I should say why I think microstock is a place mainly for amateurs.  I think that as time goes by, and the number of images increases, the number of sales each individual gets will decrease.  Not too fast, because the market is growing, but I still think sales per person will slow.  In the meantime, the agencies will make it more and more difficult to get images on to the sites.  Eventually the time needed to develop and maintain a portfolio will increase to the point that it is not economical for anyone trying to earn a living from photography.  They will abandon microstock for niches where they can earn a higher hourly rate, leaving microstock to the people who do it for fun or to pay for a new lens, the ones that are thrilled every time they sell an image.

My half-cent's worth.

Someone once bought the same image from me on Fotolia in two different sizes.  Why not just buy the bigger size and downsize?

If other sites besides Fotolia told you who bought the images, it might be easier to resolve issues like the one posted here about an image being used in a newspaper with a huge circulation.

Of course, some of the licenses give ridiculously high limits, like one million.  There isn't a magazine in the US with a circulation of one million.

There was just a Supreme Court ruling about tranformational art that allowed the use of a photograph.  There was another one a few years ago that made an artist pay the photographer.

One of the key issues is whether the artist has made things available before, etc. etc.  Puttin an image out there for sale means you are giving up a lot of control. Since the stock license agreements are pretty loose, it's probably legal.

I presume that was sarcasm.  I have no insight,  With insight I would be able to figure out my rejection e-mails.  And I'd have more than two sales.

I found this info on a post in the forums.  Someone asked, an aswer was given, and then the transfer notice was dropped in the middle of the answer.  A bit strange, I thought.

At least the payment strategy for free images makes sense to me.  Unlike some things on the microstock sites.

Setting up bank accounts in some countries is a lot harder than it is in the US.  Some require weird things like reference letters.  I think US banks require money, an address, and a tax id.

There are those who purport that one should always spread one's similar shots out over several uploads anyway, to avoid encouraging the inspector to cherry pick.

Seems to be OK now.

Have you tried going to the site as if you were a buyer and seeing what prices are like?

At least any photo you have uploaded anywhere has multiple backups.  If you are on five sites, there are five copies, and all of them will probably have several generations of backups.

The upgrade is complete.