Yes ShadySue, I have read that bit. I stand by my point.

Fair enough.
Opt out in April, if it's relevant to you, and be happy. 

Sorry on phone - computer not connecting to the internet. For clarity this is in reply to Valo' s suggestion that Alamy's business is shady as 85% of its profits goes to his uncle's charity:

How is that shady in itself? IMO running an agency to support a charity is far better than to keep someone  in a multi million dollar flat overlooking Central Park, or to keep a lot of venture capitalists happy.  If JW kept 100% of the profit of his own business, would that be 'shady'? If he gave 85% of the profit to his uncle, would that be 'shady'?
What on earth is 'shady' about running a business to support a charity?
The money going to a family charity is no secret and was originally a strong positive for me in considering Alamy. I've already posted that I've read undefended suggestions on Alamy's forum that the research done by the charity had not been very effective. Thay may or may not be true, but if you find an agency which gives us more than 50% / 30% and supports charity with more than 85% of the profits, be sure to let us know.

BTW, according to Wikipedia, Mike Fischer, co-founder of Research Machines, whose educational software was for many years (no idea about nowadays) used in UK schools, is co-founder of Alamy.

It seems a rather blinkered and silly view to suggest that any distributor selling our work does "literally nothing".  The equal and opposite view would be that photographers don't deserve to get paid when all they did was press a button.  No doubt successful distributors are engaged in negotiating deals, advertising their services and wining and dining potential clients, among other things. It's a job that has lots of behind the scenes skills, work and expenses, just like creating images does.

[Come to think of it, that seems to be almost exactly the degree of respect that some agencies, like Fotolia and perhaps Veer,  have for contributors].