Seriously, its on your My Alamy page !!!

http://www.alamy.com/registration/creative_upload_apply.aspx

I've never tried their Creative collection because of the rule 'one in, all in', which I agree is totally bizarre. That issue has been brought up on the forum with no satisfactory answer.
I wonder if they ever thought through the consequence that someone who submits to the Creative collection is then unable to submit editorial.

Unreleased travel images are unlikely to be accepted as Creative.
Alamy are even more pernickity about releases than e.g. iStock. Even totally blurry pixels which are background people must be indicated as 'needs release' 'no release' (if you don't have them). Of course, you could often clone out the blurry pixels, but then you'd have a dilemma as to whether you'd altered the original enough to have to say it's altered, because if you did, you might lose a buyer who might want an unaltered image. (I have no idea what proportion of editorial buyers wants 'unaltered'.)

I don't see how that serves the customer. If you have indicated the blurry pixels as e.g. '1 person' or 'more than 4 people', the image shows up when a buyer searches on the appropriate number of people, when I'll wager 99.9% of the time they actually wanted to see the people clearly. Again, this issue has been raised on Alamy's forums, with no reply other than 'that's how it is'.

Although whenever they release something new, they always say they're repsonding to customers' needs, there are a few things which impact badly on search results that they seem to hold as a tabula rasa.

They now have the 'best of' button, which no-one can/will explain, which is supposed to highlight 'creative' imagery, but contains a lot of editorial. It's supposed to reflect buyer trends and a degree of hand picking, but I'm by no means the only person who has an unsold image from a series from which other/s have sold in the best match while the sold ones aren't. Although it would be very difficult to choose 'best of' in any case (because the 'best' photo in an exhibition might not meet your needs for a project), it's impossible to see what has caused the best in many searches to have been selected. Because of spam, or the way Alamy's search combines random unrelated words from several fields in search results, a lot of 'best of' results don't even reflect the search. But oddly, a few 'test searches' I make regularly in the 'relevant' search are a bit more relevant than formerly.

I guess it boils down to having to get used to the quirks (even if illogical) of each agency you decide to stay with.

I dont understand anything about Alamy and I dont bother with them anymore. I am accepted into their creative collection but I only had 1 sale few months back since I joined them in July. Plus their release policy is just ridiculous.

Good thing. Every person who leaves them, means more income for the rest of us.

The release policy is for buyers to see what's in the image and if it has a release or not. CYA lawyers at work.

But you are missing part two. Alamy says, it's up to the end user to determine the final use.

So lets say you have an image with "no release" blurred backs in a crowd or those tiny speck people in the distance. The buyer can say "aw heck, I don't need a release for that" and use it without a release.

See the difference? We're not liable anymore, the agency isn't liable. The contract stats the actual rules of law, that the end user is responsible for the final use.

Looking at the other side. You have an unreleased image up on X-Micro as editorial. Someone downloads it and uses it on a dish soap bottle. The lady sues because she never signed a release. According to people here (and I don't know, I'm not a copyright lawyer!) That lady can sue the agency and the photographer? I doubt that they would, because claims follow the money and starving artists aren't worth the paperwork. 

But which way would you want it? You are covered by the agency contract, or you are potentially sued for doing nothing wrong?

And that's why Alamy has us tell the truth about the image content. So a buyer can judge for themselves what's in it and what release is attached. And because that buyer has been notified that they alone are responsible for how the image is used.

I didn't even try Creative, I'm 98% Editorial on Alamy. Didn't understand it either. So I just skipped it. Wasn't that by invitation only to start with?

Looking at the other side. You have an unreleased image up on X-Micro as editorial. Someone downloads it and uses it on a dish soap bottle. The lady sues because she never signed a release. According to people here (and I don't know, I'm not a copyright lawyer!) That lady can sue the agency and the photographer? I doubt that they would, because claims follow the money and starving artists aren't worth the paperwork. 
But which way would you want it? You are covered by the agency contract, or you are potentially sued for doing nothing wrong?

I haven't looked into other agencies' T&Cs, but would avoid any who hadn't spelled this out.

While encouraging iStock's CR team to pursue one of my editorial files which was being used commercially, I got this response:
"... in general assuming the contributor has absolutely no involvement with the user other than the fact that the contributor has uploaded the file to iStock and the user downloaded it from iStock and used inappropriately, the contributor is not be responsible for the user�s fault.  You as the contributor have authorized the use of your uploaded "editorial only" files to only those uses deemed permissible by iStock.  If the user is in breach of it, then that is the user�s fault as it is against both iStock�s and the contributor�s wishes."

Ironically, in response to another query I made (about editorial use without accreditation,they confirmed:
As per the CLA, Prohibited uses:  Section 4. 14, you may not use the Content for editorial purposes without including the following credit adjacent to the Content or in audio/visual production credits: ��iStockphoto.com/Artist�s Member Name]. It is clearly stated within the terms of the Agreement, as are all of the other prohibited uses. "

Which only goes to show how many buyers either don't read the CLA or ignore it, as the vast majority of my online in-use editorial finds are not credited at all, whether actual editorial files or main collection files used editorially.

someone who submits to the Creative collection is then unable to submit editorial.

No your Creative Collection portfolio would be a separate account. Not just a different pseudonym. One account for CC. Another account for everything else.