Mandy, Next time, I would appreciate it that you read my whole post. You have the right to not practice due diligence on your part. It's your business. I have the right to ask questions, it's my business. It's called due diligence. Al [Read more...] posted in Sale earnings mystery.

Mandy, Next time, I would appreciate it that you read my whole post. You have the right to not practice due diligence on your part. It's your business. I have the right to ask questions, it's my business. It's called due diligence. Also, I said, "Let's agree to disagree." But, you apparently did not read the whole posting so I'm going to have to repeat myself here: it's not about trust. It's a business ethic. You don't have to like it. You have no business implying or telling people that they cannot ask questions or practice due diligence. This is when you keep your trap shut and practice your own damn business. I'll do mine. I don't expect a reply. posted in Sale earnings mystery.

Right. But to keep asking some of us to "trust an agent" without having all information to ensure due diligence is almost unthinkable in the business world. Like I said, Madoff...They trusted him but did not have all the information. Had the [Read more...] posted in Sale earnings mystery.

Right. But to keep asking some of us to "trust an agent" without having all information to ensure due diligence is almost unthinkable in the business world. Like I said, Madoff...They trusted him but did not have all the information. Had they asked for it, they would have been cut off from the scheme and perhaps saved themselves a few bucks. Now I understand LightArt's statement...There is no way for us, the contributors, to confirm or not, the actual $ paid for our photos. Perhaps DT should change that from now on and, instead of credits, they put up the actual $ paid for. You see, a few years back, I see this on my earnings: Under the Williamsburg Bridge 02/05/2007 05/01/2008 old manhattan black and white This is a level 1 image 1 credit (2007) $0.50 small (RF) One credit = $1 my 50% = $.50 This is pretty clear. For some of you to brush off the fact that some of us would like to do due diligence to our business is very insulting. It's not about trusting Dreamstime. It's about your own business ethics--if you don't want to practice that, suit yourself. It's about your own responsibility for yourself and your business. We're not imposing that you do your own due diligence. Try not to impose your business practices on us. Let's just agree to disagree. We'll do our due diligence here and ask "Why is it that last year a credit meant $1 and this year a credit is not $1?" and "How do I know what the buyer paid for for our images?" I don't want to deduct--I may be wrong when I deduct some of these. LightArt said "transparency." Why is that such a big deal?? In fact, these are simple information we as contributors have the right to know. my royalty of $3.52 doesn't tell me what credit package the buyer bought. I could deduct it, indeed; but, that does not make it verified information because how do I know DT didn't make a mistake (harmless one at it) and to be frank... There's no way to confirm this. That's all. posted in Sale earnings mystery.