Well, they say they are specifically for southeast asia, so no.  I am not from there, and don't have photos from there, so I don't see why I should bother.

Wow.  They make no promises at all.. except to spread your stuff around, maybe.

Down to 7 now...

You would think, after multiple take down requests, the whole portfolio, and the "photographer" would get tossed.

I don't see how reducing prices on something that's already * cheap can help the situation. 

The whole point of clip art books is that they are public domain.  Most of the artwork is, indeed, over 75 years old. Some of the artwork is over 100 years old.   I collect clip art books, which is why I recognize it in stock illustrations.

There are digital clip arts that are public domain, most of them are in very old formats, such as wmf.  These older vector formats could not produce curves or gradients, so each image had thousands of nodes, and multiple layers to create any gradients.

I figure, if the submitter has put in the effort to convert these clunky old files into clean, easily edited vectors, it's fair for them to get paid for that.  It's certainly worth it to a buyer to have the modernized version.

I see a lot, though, that look like someone just put a book on a scanner, and posted the results.  This would violate the terms of service for  stock sites that exclude public domain images.  Legally, an unaltered copy of a public domain image is still public domain.   An altered one, such as one colorized, vectorized, or developed, is considered new work.  (however, it can be hard to defend copyright on, since others might do almost the exact same alterations, parallel evolution)

Fun fact:  It's called "clip" art because printers used to actually cut it out of large sheets to paste into their layouts.   

You honestly expect Shutterstock to have an army of reviewers to police every single one of the millions of submissions they get every week and cross reference those to every other agency and/or website on the internet to ensure they're all legit?

Yes.
They used to do that.
Other sites still do.

I didn't say I thought it was the fault of some country or other.  I am sure that Shutterstock is aware of the differences in copyright laws in other countries, and that for some places, they face no risk of legal fallout.   I blame Shutterstock, not the other countries, for Shutterstock's taking advantage of the differences.

If you think you can report them to somebody who will do something, do so.

They wanted a mailing address, phone number and all, I just used the information from a McDonald's down the street.

You do have to have a legit email, so, rather than risk contaminating my regular email, I got a Yahoo address.

They may eventually get around to checking these things, but evidently not before submitted images go live. 

I just disabled the portfolio, I was starting to get sales. (what?)

Apparently, you can't just close a Shutterstock account, so I had to send a message to support to ask for it to be closed.  I explained the reason thoroughly.

I wasn't aware that resellers had any reason to contact contributors directly.  What did she want?

Thiefy has had a couple of rejections.  A small percentage of the uploads.

Two for "noise/grain", which is true of those images.

One for Intellectual property, which is appropriate for that image. 

Three for "Previously Submitted Content: This image has already been submitted to Shutterstock."    This is interesting.

One is in this portfolio: https://www.shutterstock.com/g/WireStock+Inc

One is in these portfolios: https://www.shutterstock.com/g/srujan+kumar   and https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Yogendra+kumar+6699

The third does not seem to actually appear on Shutterstock.  None of these are the owners of the images.

I honestly thought there was some sort of conspiracy going on.  I figured there were bribed reviewers, or some sneaky arrangements between Unsplash and Shutterstock itself.
 
Nope.  It's just that it's absurdly easy to do.

A bot can be set up to download the images, and upload them to shutterstock.   Suggested keywords are automatically added, and a five or more word title generated from the detected subject matter.   It's not even a lot of work to do it by hand.

When you download an image from Unsplash, the image title contains the name of the person who uploaded it to unsplash, and the word unsplash, for example:

joshua-earle-l6juNKOlzvs-unsplash.jpg

Even with the obvious file titles, and nonsensical keywords, the images are accepted.

I present to you, the easy peasy portfolio of Thiefy McThieferson!  (done by hand, no bot)

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Thiefy+McThieferson

I will of course, be taking this down before anything has a chance to sell, but I thought the results of this little experiment should be shown. 

This was a fun day. 

If you think about it, agencies with millions of images already ought to have high rejection rates.  How many more pictures of flowers and pets could they possibly need? 

But, there they are, accepting random mediocre images by the hundreds of thousands...

I think they don't know what their policy should be, and each reviewer is just winging it.  Rejections depend on who you get.