It seems like the new contract is just codifying practices they've been using for years (see below**), but it is troubling that it trashes our right to choose to sue for violations by, in effect, letting Alamy settle the dispute by allowing a retroactive license.

The hold over any image previously licensed is also troubling. If an image is on Alamy and you are asked for an exclusive by someone else, you can set restrictions that would protect against its use during the exclusive period, but if your image has been removed, you now have no way to ever license it for an exclusive term since Alamy is free to do what it wants with an image once it is removed.
I guess the only protection would be to contact Alamy and put them on notice that they may not re-license an image, because it will conflict with your new license terms, but we should not be forced to step through so many hoops for images that have been withdrawn.

**I've had many instances where I found an image being used and Alamy chased down their client who failed to report the use and paid me for a retroactive license. In the old days, the rate was punitive and I figured it was far easier than suing someone for copyright violation and trying to collect from someone in a different country. Lately though, they would issue a license at the new lower rate which really annoyed me, but again seemed easier in the long run that suing for copyright violation and trying to collect from an international source (all the unreported images were used by British and Canadian sources and I'm in the US).

I've also had them issue licenses (albeit on very favorable terms) for images that I had deleted from Alamy. In that case, it was actually to my benefit, but it could have been a disaster if they'd done this with an RM image and it contradicted an territory, use or image exclusive license.

They do have a good record for backpedaling and trying to work with contributors when they make a poor decision, so let's hope they do so in this case.

Alamy are trying to avoid answering this too hard to answer question

This is why my focus this year is my own site and building my personal brand and direct sales. It's almost impossible to keep up with all of the shady changes at all of these sites.

http://www.epuk.org/news/an-open-letter-from-epuk-to-alamy-regarding-the-new-contributor-contract-terms

"Alamy, it seems is trying to establish a perpetual and irrevocable contract with images that they have previously sold on our behalf at a time when this was not the case, which allows them to continue selling them even after the contract with the photographer has been terminated. While this may have advantages for Alamy it has significant disadvantages for the photographer. The provision would last for the full term of copyright and we see it as unreasonably extensive."

Not a problem at all IF THEY ADD CONTIBUTORS ON MONTHLY PAY ROLL Say usual photographers wages? About GBP 40.000 Plus taxes?

Alamy responds to EPUK:

http://www.epuk.org/news/alamy-responds-to-epuk-s-open-letter

yeah yeah ... and then at the end of their rant there's a "Commenting is closed for this article" warning message ... like saying "that's it, so now shut up and F up".

Not speaking on the merits yet as I haven't had time for a detailed read, but you have to give them credit on the form. Granted, the EPUK complaints came from a powerful source. But still: What other agency replies to photographers' grievances with such effort and such speed these days?

Not really Hobo, at the bottom of the article it includes a link to where continued comments should be posted.

"We welcome your comments on Alamy's response and on our original article. Rather than comment here we'd like to keep all the comments in one place with the original article. Click here to add your voice."

Quote from: Digital66 on March 06, 2015, 00:21

Alamy responds to EPUK:

http://www.epuk.org/news/alamy-responds-to-epuk-s-open-letter

yeah yeah ... and then at the end of their rant there's a "Commenting is closed for this article" warning message ... like saying "that's it, so now shut up and F up".

New changes to the contract today. 

Well at least Alamy advise contributors before they change the contract and are willing to make amendments.

Unlike the Fotolia/DPC debacle and iStock (everything they do) and Shutterstock's latest "contract update" 

Quote from Alamy email today:

"We made some changes to your Alamy contract on 16th February that were due to come into force on April 1st.

We've had some feedback from our photographers and it made us realise that some of the clauses didn't accurately reflect how we work, so we've made some changes.

To summarise: 
After deletion or termination, we will only issue re-use licences for the same product or project as the original sale.
We will only licence images after deletion or termination if we've already entered into negotiations or had a download for the proposed licence before the image was removed from the site.
We've set a limit of two years from the date of deletion or termination for licensing of images where there's been a download or we've entered into negotiations.
We're not preventing photographers from chasing alleged copyright infringements, but they need to check with us first.
We're sorry we didn't do a good job of explaining this before.

Because we've made some further changes we're writing to give you 45 days notice of all recent changes.

The new contract is here and the key changes are listed here. All changes will be effective from 14th May 2015."


http://www.alamy.com/terms/contributor.asp?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Contract&utm_campaign=Contractual%20changes%20-%2030th%20March%202015%20%28pre16%2F02%29&utm_term=Contributors

http://www.alamy.com/contributor/contract/amendments/300315.asp?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Changes%20to%20the%20contract&utm_campaign=Contractual%20changes%20-%2030th%20March%202015%20%28pre16%2F02%29&utm_term=Contributors