This is actually a way to keep you from DELETING your images.

While your portfolio is disabled, you can't access your own images to delete them.  They still show up in Shutterstock's database, so Google sees them, and directs searchers to Shutterstock, using your image.  They still count toward Shuttertock's count of images.

So, rather than disable, delete.

Do the missing images have anything in common?  Are they all the same model?  Do they contain graffiti? 

Looking at what you have on Alamy, there may be some property concerns.

There's no way for us to tell why Dreamstime isn't allowing downloads.  It may even be something with your account, rather than the images.

Adobe and Dreamstime will be happy to have content that Shutterstock doesn't.

It's possible they licensed your image, which would give them the right to use it, I guess, though why they'd want to use an image no longer on their site is beyond me.

All 2500 of my images?  No. What I think is going on is that, even though I asked for my account to be deleted, they just deactivated it.  So, technically, my images are still part of their total count of images, even though they can not be purchased.

Have you done something differently lately?

Maybe something has been mis-interpreted.  Tell us about your recent activities, maybe we can help you get this sorted out.

A link to one of your portfolios might help.

Shutterstock has finally made themselves into the Wal-Mart of stock photography.  They will probably still make a profit from selling tons of totally crappy images at "low everyday prices".   But, I don't think that will satisfy their corporate greed.

My concern it that they'll turn to Bigstock next.

My sales there are pathetic, and have been for some time.  I'm wondering if I should bail out before things get weird.

Although, Shutterstock's most likely move may be to simply close Bigstock.

What do you all think?

So, how much is 15% of  three cents?

You know that's where they're going. 

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.