Dear Joakim: I sell a number of flower bulbs for which I don't have a photo to represent. As a retailer, the old saying, "A picture is worth a thousand words," really means something. I would so desperately like to have a picture for every product, because I believe it adds significant impact to how well the product will sell. This may not have been the case decades ago, but so many of the well established bulb dealers DO have pictures, and, I believe, customers are accustomed to deciding on a product based on being able to see a picture. I've been photographing like a madman the past year and a quarter, so people can SEE what I am selling. I have had limited success finding affordable sources of images, but have found one or two. It's still frustrating. For a company to take indiscriminately, without permission, other peoples' images to promote their products is doing three "naughty" things. They are using someone else's vested resource without permission and taking 100% of the profit that the addition of that resource provided to their income. Two, they are NOT investing their own money or efforts (legal) into the acquisition of those resources. Three, they are adding additional credibility to their product from a source that has not acknowledged their product to be credible. IBS & PBS are non-profit, but that does not mean they don't need money to survive. When a for-profit company takes these images without permission they take a legitimate resource away from a non-profit org. If IBS or PBS is the original and only source for a particular species ID via image, this attracts viewers, potentially attracting members, potentially promoting the survival (and hoped non-profit prosperity) of the organization. Get a few image pirates out there, then, when someone wants to do a web search for a particular species image, IBS or PBS is no longer the only reference. The customer now chooses their link. This would be all fine and dandy if the other images were unique (choice is good), or if the org had made some sort of arrangement with the user, because the org has had a chance to decided how they might benefit from whatever trade is made, but what happens here is the pirate takes all the benefit. Of course, it gets even more complicated when the images actually originate with groups of people. These people want to share their images with other members and even the world, but they have chosen to share them, in agreement with the associated organization, from a particular source, I would presume besides the aforementioned, to help that organization attract new members. If a business inquires with the org, which then inquires with the individual (assuming the org has not garnered by agreement all rights to the image), and the individual agrees under whatever terms, then great. Otherwise, the org and individual have be robbed, even if only in the right of giving permission. Joakim Erson wrote: >My mother always told me to ask when I don´t understand something, and I do >not understand this. > I may have missed it, but I don't believe Douglas made an aggression toward IBS here. >The case as I understand it ( and I havent read alot about it, so please >correct me if Im wrong) is that someone has submitted your ( >Douglas´s)pictures ( under fake name?) to IBS gallery?if so, isnt your >aggression towards IBS mis-placed? > LONG LIVE LYCORIS!! -- Mr. Kelly M. Irvin The Bulbmeister 4407 Town Vu Road Bentonville, AR 72712 479-685-1339 USDA Cold Hardiness Zone 6b E-mail: mailto:bulbmeister@bulbmeister.com Website: http://www.bulbmeister.com/ Forum: http://www.bulbmeister.com/forum/