DP is not alone in refusing to give contributors a list of their partner sites. Veer wouldn't do that either, and wouldn't let contributors opt out of partner sales. That's why I left them last year.

In all cases, contributors should be entitled to a complete list of partners - how else are we to tell thieves from partners? None of the agencies will go after the rogue sites, so it's left to us to try and figure out who's a partner and who is not legit.

I think it is ideal if an agency allows contributors to opt out of partner deals one by one and at any time.

Next best is if there is an opt out and it's immediate (like Dreamstime's is; the thumbs stay in searches for a little bit but nothing can be purchased as the sales are all via their API)

Next best is if there's an opt out of any kind, even like Alamy's where it's only once a year.

Backup solutions are cheap - staying with a lousy agency because they let you download your own images is a terrible bargain, IMO.

This fantasy that the agencies are increasing our exposure is often peddled to persuade us to allow multiple predatory companies to take a share of the earnings - a share that should be going to the creator of the work.

In the age of the internet, the role of distributors should be going away or gone.  As with other bad-for-contributor terms and conditions, too many people continue to supply the partner deals, so the terms don't get any better. If you want to be treated any better you have to be prepared to walk away...