Hi, This is a good question for the casual Web user, many folks do not understand or appreciate the reasoning behind copyright law. Actually, the truth is that there is value to Web photos, but it may not be known, per se. This is why the bulb nursery in question has not taken the time and expense to create/take/produce its own photos. Each photo might be easy to produce if a camera is available at the right time, etc. However, making 20, or 50, or 100 photos is a lot of work and has value. Photos have value even if only in time spent, and effort to correctly identify them, etc. This is the basis of copyright law, writing, and photography have value and cannot be used or appropriated indiscriminately. Copyright law is clear. When any photo or writing dated and known to be associated with a creator, then the material is copyrighted (even if copyright is not claimed). The important matters are to date, and to identify an author. Web lists and pages that identify photos by author are suitable to establish copyright, newspapers and magazines are suitable. Even mailing the photo or written work to yourself is acceptable because the postmark establishes date. Even if you don't know a piece is copyrighted (writing or photo, etc.), it may be copyrighted. There are some exceptions to copyright law. For instance, educational purposes are allowed (a teacher may use a Web photo of a bulb in flower to illustrate a botanical concept for a class). Almost without exception, a person may not infringe upon copyrighted material in order to make a profit; this is important and the courts give "profit" a great amount of weight. So, if a bulb company improperly uses copyrighted material to illustrate a Web catalog, they are almost certainly in violation of copyright law. Enforcing copyright is more problematic and entails time and money, as well as (probably) copyright registration. One informal means (often cost free) is to notify others (via a list such as the PBS list) that copyright is being infringed. Often such announcements help to establish a pattern and boycotts can occur. If people (e.g., hobbyists) are upset about businesses taking photos without permission or payment, they may choose to spread the word or boycott a business. The principle (to me) seems similar to a clothing company "cutting and pasting" catalog pages and photos from a competitors catalog, without paying the graphic design artist, the camera man, or the model. It is not high on the list of crimes against humanity, but the net effect is that is may cause some to stop posting their beautiful photos on the Web, we can all stand to lose should that happen. LINK 1. Copyright Law FAQ http://www.patents.com/weblaw.sht LINK 2. Copyright Registration http://www.copyright.gov/register/