Lots of ways to speculate on the lack of a non-compete agreement:
Non-compete clauses may not be enforceable in that jurisdiction.
The buyer may not feel threatened by whatever the seller may do.
The seller may be starting a new venture that will help the buyer gain market share.
The seller may be starting a division that is within the buyers organization.
The seller may have an undisclosed non-compete agreement.
The seller may have negotiated that there not be a non-compete agreement in the contract in exchange for a lower payout.

Whatever, I'm adopting my wait and see position as with any new start-up. Too many broken hopes in the past to waste any more time on.

well said.
 i don't think Getty nor the creator of StockXpert are like such no brainers . They're business people and they're in it to make money. Much like those who owned properties in the old day, sold it, changed that said area into inner city and slums, buy it back at a fire sale price.   These are shrewd business people who have not lost their shirts, and they don't just make a lot of noise for the sake of making noise.
Getty has a strategy, and the apparent continual of tighter and more stringent reviews at StockXpert and the prompt approval of those with images they want , points to this strategy that no matter what we think, Getty is still not showing their cards.
The creator of StockXpert too has a strategy, or else he would not be asking those who intend to migrate add their email to his site.
One thing is sure. We are already past one decade, and trends do change.
No surprise , as demographics change with each decade, which explains why DT also has clamped down on apparent old favourites.
The dinosaur perish due to their inability to change. Somehow, we've already seen young pups being destroyed at birth due to their lack of experience.
And somehow, I don't think I will be seeing the demise of Getty , nor the brainchild of the creator of StockXpert when he brings out his new idea.
People like them don't make money staying in one place, and nor do they continue to make money walking around with folders over their eyes.

And, Perseus, it seems there are problems with all the sites according to many members here so I guess if one would stop adding images it would be hard to pick a site that was perfect to upload to.

so true Red, we do have a dilemma, don't we?

Quote from: Perry on January 25, 2010, 08:27

Legally this is OK. Morally it's very dubious to sell the same images at very different price points. I think selling same images at Alamy and micro sites is very bad for the whole stock business because it devalues the Alamy(/macrostock) collection.

Not really.

http://seanlockedigitalimagery.wordpress.com/2009/02/20/the-right-value-for-your-money/

gee, I didn't even know you had a blog Mr. Locke.
I just added it to the top of my bookmark listing.
You are a man of many secrets, SJLocke 

Do all sites accept (almost) anything from new contributors just to get them hooked then hope they get a sale or two but never enough sales to ever get a payout?

well , as i recall my very first seminar attended on Marketing a loooongggggg time ago, the speaker said a memorable thing which even after 30 years I still remember this, "THE FIRST PUFF OF OPIUM IS ALWAYS FREE"

If we are talking unconditional support, then no. If we are talking uploading a small sample to test the waters, then probably. If it was getting decent reviews, then I would probably check it out and upload an initial sample portfolio.

well ya, i can understand your more objective conditional support.
I said UNCONDITIONAL because personally , StockXpert was the very first micro site that not only took at awesome interest in my work, but also gave me my best downloads from the start as a new micro contributor.
Of course, as many of you said, it all but got jeopardized right after they offered subs.

Yes.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/stockxpert-com/announcement-press-release/

 THANK YOU SOOOOO MUCH
my affiliate and I have just added our emails .
You're a good man, massman

Quote from: madelaide on January 23, 2010, 13:43

What puzzles me is that there is a constant HD activity, even right now when I am writing this in the notebook and I am doing nothing at the PC.

There are some pretty bad trojans around that AVG doesn't detect. What I would do is disconnect the PC totally from the net, and see if the disk activity stops then. If not, let it do for a while. XP sometimes runs file system smoothing tasks in the background.

I think for that reason it is why my colleagues and I only use a public computer at our coop to
do all these communications and blogging. Our archives are not connected to the internet,
but we make DVD of our images to bring to this common service computer when we need to upload our work.
Even if there is a hacker or intrusion on that computer, and I am sure there is a virus or two here and  there.
Whoever hacks that computer which we are using (now even), may also be sending back a virus , and hopefully a worm, rofl, back to themselves.

As for our work, all being on DVD , we don't use them back on our home computers.
Even if we did, DVDs are write once  only , and we can't see the possibility of a virus infecting our source machines.

Sometimes it's better to use a communal computer ie. at your coop, at your library, at your university, or best, at your pub or pool salon.

Troublesome, perharps, as you are sharing this computer with 40-50 other ppl in your coop,
but at least if that computer crashes, our work is not threatened. And you can have a pint and chat while watching tennis or formula race on the giant screen sports tv

Something to consider.

Quote from: snappyhappy on January 24, 2010, 07:06

Oh and I tried uploading the original picture. But it won't let me, so am uploading a smaller version of it. Sorry about that, I know that was a comment last time.

You'll have to try harder.  We can't tell from that tiny image.

BTW, you had your shutter speed set to 1/100.  Not your aperture.  Take some time to read up on how your camera works.

As Mr Locke mentioned so astutely, you have alot of work to do.
Get to know your camera. Get to know the proper glossary. You have to start with Photography 101 before trying to shoot like Mr. Locke.

Sharpness, definition of all around the image, clarity, etc.. are all part of basic photography.
Do your homework to understand depth of field with each aperture (f/stop). those little things you see on your lens... is expressed as a fraction of the aperture. ie. eg. 22 16 is smaller than 4.5, 1.4,etc
the other thing you mentioned is the shutter speed, not the aperture as Mr Locke corrected you .
That is shutter speed. the higher those numbers, 100, 200, the more you are able to freeze an image and help to get your images to be clearer. 30, 15, are the slow speed that you will use when you are using a lower ISO (film speed) , and these are more predominant when you are in a low light situation, like a shopping centre, etc.. remember, i did not say make an image sharper,
because to make sharp image entails a lot of thing, holding a camera still, choosing the right speed to capture motion, choosing the right aperture to give you more depth of field. (usually, placing your point of focus some 1/3 of the oject area will provide you detail in front and 2/3 behind).
sharpness is not gain in depth of field. intense sharpness is achieved
with a point of focus which is not depth of field.
depth of field is more like our eye sight's "perepheral vision",, not "sharpest images, " but apparent "overall clarity".
but we won't get to that today. you will have to find that out with your own effort.
there is no free lunch in excellence 

back to your image. lighting again is yet another thing you have to master if you want to make that shot.  notice how you got the plate "white off" and the shadow a bit on the dark side.
this is due to your improper lighting, or placement of the object.
one point source of light, no doubt, maybe a window light or something else.
thus you have the shadow down there and the top "washed out".

if you are using existing light, you can still make an excellent product shot.
in fact, all of my product shots are just that, window lighting.
but you have to bring in some form of supplement lighting. reflectors , fill flash,etc..
to balance off the lighting so the highlight (which is the top section) will not be "washed out"
due to over exposure. and so that the bottom part (the shadow area) will not be so dark.

you use those supplementary lighting to "fill in" where there is lack of light,
and or you can use a "go-bo" (go between)  to block off or shade off , say the top area
where there is too much light.

it's a lot of details, yes. but all these mysteries can be solved if you took the time to learn
how to see these imbalance of light, and then apply your exposure properly to place those
"white" airy ambience that you say you want to make.

Ambience is more or less the dispersion of light to create that glow. No, not less flare, but glow.
Light captured by fast shutter speed does not give the exposure enough to capture luminscence.
Slow shutter speed allows for the ambience or glow to be record on film or digital media.

Again, you will know this after you do your homework.

Then , before all this, you have to know your lens so you don't get yet another problem
ie. the built in "defects" of glass.  Vignette, bellow, pincushion, etc.. are some new words you will discover.

Find the "sweet spot" (critical aperture),, the sharpest portion of your lens
and try to use this. This will give you a crisp clear clean image all the time.
If the sweet spot, mine is usually around f 8  requires you to use a tripod, then use one.
Using a tripod also "slows" you down to make you more conscious of your image.
You have the luxury to wait and inspect, relocate to rearrange to a better composition (argghhh, yet another thing you have to learn inPhotography 101),
and to get the proper exposure. (arghh, yet again. it's not just something your camera is smart enough to know when you are shooting isolated objects or background that is too light or too dark
away from the neutral intensity of light that auto matic meter always renders the "proper" exposure.

Try not to reach for the stars, when you're still not ready to grab a tree.
Hit the photo manual and text books and instruction of basic photography
before you try to shoot something that Mr. Locke or Ansel Adams, or even me... lol...
are doing.

We spent a lot of time shooting boring things like shoes and boxes to learn to "see light"
before we even did our first "commercial" assignment.

It's so much easier for you now, with digital to practise at no cost.
During my days, and Mr Locke's day I am sure, we had to spend a lot of our lunch money from our parents on films to master the basics of photography.

Get your foundation strong , or else you won't build a house that will stand firmly.
Keep shooting,
but as the french say,  "un chose a la fois" ( one step at the time")

to continue:

what I mean is, for example, when I had the dls from European companies,
they tended to prefer say a food image with nice table setting wine glass lighting ambience.
while the US buyers which are mostly I get from the other Big 6 go for straight big chunk of meat, sometimes raw meat even,
and not once did I get a dl of the stylish nice table setting, except for FT.
and with FT, the chunk of raw meat or whatnot got no dls at all.

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on January 23, 2010, 18:15

Quote from: DBeck on January 23, 2010, 14:29

Unless you are exclusive with iStock, you will have a much higher percentage of rejections, especially if your images compete with exclusive contributors.  It's the way they operate.  I've also noticed the same with Fotolia lately.  I used to have the highest acceptance rate at Fotolia and now they seem to be following iStock's pattern.  I hope it works for the both of them in the long run, because they are turning down some great images.

Where did you get this info from? I'm exclusive and I haven't seen any difference in rejection patterns from before I was exclusive.

And I'm not exclusive, and I don't believe it either. The part about iStock. I'll buy it for FT. 

 and baby makes 3..   
 Like KB I am not exclusive, and I three...agree with Paulie 
And yes, FT is now getting pretty close to IS's stringency.
Which as I mentioned before, the approval will still be consistent when you pay close attention to detail and be more careful as to which work to send them.

I disagree with Perseus' advice for getting unusual subjects or behaviour for iStock in particular - I can't speak for the other micros. Firstly, iStock's buyers seem mostly to be interested in the well-known species shot in 'coffee-table book' style, not in the more typically 'natural history' photos.

good points too, ShadySue. but I need to explain my "unusual". I don't mean strange or odd subject.
by that I mean, many nature photographers seem to take the generic images which as Paulie and everyone else from IS have mentioned 1) there's too many already (2) they don't sell even if you're approved.

nature is not simply taking what is there in front of you.
there are lots of excellent nature shots, but we need to make them more generic, other than just a nice nature shot.
i think many times ppl like paulie , sharply_done, etc.. have suggested including other inanimate  point of interest , .. i recall something s_d said a long time ago...
this is nice, but if you had maybe a man in an overcoat with an umbrella,
an oldsmobile, etc..

that's what i mean but "unusual". it brings your "ah, not another nature shot" to something conceptual.
this also increases the possibility of selling that "nature" shot.

that's what i mean by "unusual".  it's not impossible to creative conceptual shots from "found" nature
shots. you just need to bring in something or shoot it from a different perspective.

and once again, it isn't the technicality at this stage. it's to find out if you can indeed produce sellable images. thus, again as already pointed out , IS wants to see that variety, not just 3 of your favourite shots... but 3 of what you can do other than just a nice shot.

after you passed that stage, then you can bring in all those same old same old.
however, that still doesn't guarantee you that IS will approve them.

many times, others have had their initial entries accepted to be contributors,
but the same shots were then rejected on the other criteria .
which is why you have to give them 3 different genres and 3 of the very best.
it's only 3, not 10.

that being said, I feel it's no longer enough to just submit work to get approved.
It has to be something more ambitious. You're not just going to be shooting the same old same old, and expect to get to Vetta.
Look at Vetta, it's no just the same old same old.
I think any newbie, or even the old and experienced has to see the long view
instead of just making that blase "generic" micro stock photo.

Don't just look at how easy it is to submit photos - also find out how what it takes to delete them and close your account.   For some sites it's a major hassle, all the more aggravating if you're doing it because the site never made you any money.

well spoken stockastic. This is one reason why I am slowly disliking certain sites which I thought were cool to belong. I have read so much here about the hassles some ppl had faced when they've decided to go exclusive, and wham... skeletons in the closet popping up everywhere.
which reminds me, I better do some hot spring cleaning too... as I did submit to a lot of these sites too when I first came here and thought it was so cool to get 100% approval with all of them lol.