Zillow Drops Complaint Against Blogger After Backlash Over Copyright Claim (geekwire.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Zillow Drops Complaint Against Blogger After Backlash Over Copyright Claim (geekwire.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Thursday June 29, 2017 @12:45PM from the back-and-forth dept.

The blog "McMansion Hell" is back up and running days after Zillow threatened the site's creator, Kate Wagner, into taking it down. Zillow's decision to withdraw their complaint came soon after the Electronic Frontier Foundation announced it would defend Wagner pro bono. GeekWire reports: "We have decided not to pursue any legal action against Kate Wagner and McMansion Hell," a statement from the company said Thursday. "We've had a lot of conversations about this, including with attorneys from the EFF, whose advocacy and work we respect. EFF has stated that McMansion Hell won't use photos from Zillow moving forward. It was never our intent for McMansion Hell to shut down, or for this to appear as an attack on Kate's freedom of expression. We acted out of an abundance of caution to protect our partners -- the agents and brokers who entrust us to display photos of their clients' homes."

The Zillow response came in the wake of the week's events and a strongly worded letter to Zillow general counsel Brad Owens on Thursday (PDF here). EFF staff attorney Daniel Nazer said, "Our client has no obligation to, and thus will not, comply with Zillow's demands. Zillow's legal threats are not supported and plainly seek to interfere with protected speech." EFF said McMansion Hell was relaunching and no posts would be deleted, but that "in the interests of compromise, and because Wagner no longer wishes to use Zillow's website, she will no longer source photographs from Zillow for her blog."

118 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Possible real situation. by psy · 2017-06-29 12:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

So they were using their lawyers to threaten the blogger under the assumption that the blogger wouldn't be able to afford to defend themselves (possibly knowing they were legally wrong). Blogger gets free representation - and suddenly the who's right/wrong comes back into the equation and they withdraw (because they are good corporate citizens).
1. Re:Possible real situation. by sconeu · 2017-06-29 15:09 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  This. So much this.
  I was going to post:
  
  Translation:
  Oh, we can't beat this guy by pounding him into the ground with legal costs. We'd better withdraw our lawsuit.
  
  --
  General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
2. Re:Possible real situation. by Pseudonym · 2017-06-29 20:14 · Score: 2
  
  It's more likely that Zillow wrote a cease and desist to cover their asses just in case the actual copyright holders tried to put set the lawyers on them.
  It sucks, but it's a fact of life that people will sue you if you are not seen to have tried something. Even something mind-blowingly stupid.
  
  --
  sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
3. Re:Possible real situation. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-30 01:35 · Score: 0
  
  The letter from EFF is a beautiful smack-down to a troll. Something to make me smile this week!
4. Re:Possible real situation. by zifn4b · 2017-06-30 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  So they were using their lawyers to threaten the blogger under the assumption that the blogger wouldn't be able to afford to defend themselves (possibly knowing they were legally wrong). Blogger gets free representation - and suddenly the who's right/wrong comes back into the equation and they withdraw (because they are good corporate citizens).
  No... they effectively engaged in mediation and settled out of court. McMansion Hell agreed not to use the photos from Zillow going forward. Zillow decided not to pursue damages because it is significantly more difficult to meet the burden of proof that damages occurred and the EFF lawyers would very effectively argue that point vs. someone representing themselves.
  
  --
  We'll make great pets
5. Re:Possible real situation. by tlhIngan · 2017-06-30 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  It's more likely that Zillow wrote a cease and desist to cover their asses just in case the actual copyright holders tried to put set the lawyers on them.
  And I'm sure Zillow would be perfectly happy taking down the photos on the listings that the copyright holders have issue with. (It doesn't affect Zillow at all - only the homeowner whose listing is now without photos).
6. Re:Possible real situation. by stoatwblr · 2017-07-01 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  I'm assuming they aren't offering to pay the EFF a large donation to cover their legal bills and some form of compensation to Wagner?
  No? In that case, they won.
As I mentioned earlier... by pinzvidz · 2017-06-29 12:50 · Score: 1

Streisand Effect. But it's already too late, Zillow.
1. Re:As I mentioned earlier... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-29 14:02 · Score: 0
  
  Yep. And as I mentioned earlier, wow is Kate beautiful. I hope she encourages more women to be beautiful.
2. Re:As I mentioned earlier... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-29 15:34 · Score: 0
  
  wow is Kate beautiful. I hope she encourages more women to be beautiful.
  What a strange thing to say.
3. Re: As I mentioned earlier... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-29 19:16 · Score: 1
  
  She's a socialist Bernie-voting SJW.
4. Re: As I mentioned earlier... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-29 20:27 · Score: -1
  
  Streisand Effect. But it's already too late, Zillow.
  The 'Streisand Effect' refers to the phenomenon where so claimed geeks jump on the bandwagon of uncontrollably mentioning this effect because it seems it must in some way be relevant, every though they don't know why, and even though they don't know what the effect actually is, nor the initial incident.
  Everytime some thinks Zillow, foremost in their minds will be this blogger and her 'fair use' copying of Zillow's images, I'm sure.
5. Re: As I mentioned earlier... by dwillden · 2017-06-29 21:27 · Score: 2
  
  Guess again AC, the Streisand Effect is fully applicable. How many people had ever even heard of or seen her blog, until Zillow filed the C&D letter to stop her posting of their pictures? The C&D effort blew up in their face. As not only Slashdot but several other communities and even a few news agencies have carried the story, introducing millions to her previously unknown blog. Thus ensuring that millions have now seen the pictures that before would have been seen by a few thousand readers at most.
  
  This is an excellent example of the Streisand Effect as their effort to hide or remove the photos has ensured that many, many more have now seen the pictures, in the context of the blog than would have otherwise seen them.
  
  --
  I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
6. Re: As I mentioned earlier... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-30 12:30 · Score: 0
  
  That's an interesting way to say "she's a woman of principle and is unlikely to cavort with a basement-dwelling Trump supporter like me, therefore I must lash out at her as my fuhrer Donald would."
Fuck Zillow by Gravis+Zero · 2017-06-29 12:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

I don't give a fuck about their bullshit excuses. Zillow can go fuck itself. I will actively discourage people from using their site.

--
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
1. Re:Fuck Zillow by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-29 13:42 · Score: -1
  
  24/7 internet rage machine has you fuckwad.
  But apparently you think theft is a good idea. Let me guess, you're a Bernie Socialist as well right?
  Nobody gives a shit what you think.
2. Re:Fuck Zillow by gumbi+west · 2017-06-29 13:58 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I wouldn't use their cite because Red Fin has a way better site. Redfin's price estimates have also been far more accurate in my experience.
3. Re:Fuck Zillow by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-29 18:03 · Score: 1
  
  OK dude. Calm down. I will continue not using their site, mainly because not being in the house market or in the USA.
4. Re:Fuck Zillow by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-29 18:31 · Score: 0
  
  Although I now do know about McMH, and might browse it in future for some time wasting distraction, when /. is too boring/ranty.
  Captcha: marketed
5. Re:Fuck Zillow by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-29 19:05 · Score: 0
  
  Red Fin doesn't just tank your browser? I'd like to use it, but it's like the Autotrader site, there's a very high chance it will lock up my browser.
6. Re:Fuck Zillow by dcw3 · 2017-06-29 20:41 · Score: 1
  
  Did you actually look at it? I had to turn away after spending a couple minutes reading through. Nothing buy hypercritical trash.
  
  --
  Just another day in Paradise
7. Re:Fuck Zillow by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-29 21:47 · Score: 0
  
  On several occasions, when I looked at their site I would get a phone call days later asking if I wanted to sell. I don't know if this is directly related or not.
8. Re:Fuck Zillow by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-30 01:15 · Score: 0
  
  > I will actively discourage people from using their site.
  I wonder how many times I've read similar things on the internet. This is the most impotent of threats.
9. Re: Fuck Zillow by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-30 02:11 · Score: -1
  
  This. Nerds do not seem to understand that they know very few people, that they know nobody that really matters and that nobody listens to them anyway.
10. Re:Fuck Zillow by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-30 04:38 · Score: 0
  
  I wouldn't use their cite because Red Fin has a way better site. Redfin's price estimates have also been far more accurate in my experience.
  It's pretty easy to give a more accurate estimate when you only target large cities and don't bother with listings anywhere else... Redfin coverage map - note that a state becomes dark grey if they cover even a single major city in that state and ignored every other place in the state. My city has around 275,000 people and has 0 properties for viewing on Redfin.
God bless EFF once again. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-29 12:58 · Score: 0

FUCK ZILLOW and the corporatist cows they rode in on!
Sue them kate by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-29 13:05 · Score: 0

I hope you die them for the distress they caused
This is why you NEVER let the lawyers decide by mhkohne · 2017-06-29 13:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

what to do. That C&D had NO value for Zillow. Even if the blogger couldn't get help and just went away, what good would it have done? What value would there be in shutting down McMansion hell? NONE. It's not any kind of threat to Zillow. It doesn't infringe on their business any. It makes people who can't afford million dollar homes laugh at the kinda-silly architecture while wishing we could afford to live in a house that stupid.
And now? Zillow, corporate bully, backs down the moment the other side has a lawyer. Making Zillow look EVEN WORSE because it's clear they knew they had nothing to go on, and if they proceeded, they'd get curb-stomped by the EFF.
stupid, Stupid, STUPID. Zillow just pissed away the good will (or at least inattention) of who knows how many people, because either they don't keep their lawyers on a short enough leash, or some exec takes it personally when they get mocked.
Either way, Zillow - get your shit together!

--
A thousand pounds of wood moving at 300 feet per minute. Don't get in the way.
1. Re:This is why you NEVER let the lawyers decide by speedplane · 2017-06-29 18:54 · Score: 2
  
  Sadly, hundreds or perhaps thousands of C&Ds like these are written every day. This one blogger caught the attention of national media and got help from the EFF. The vast majority of people don't. Zillow wouldn't write this letter if they didn't think they had a good shot at getting what they want without repercussions. They lost this time, but it's a drop in the bucket.
  
  --
  Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
2. Re:This is why you NEVER let the lawyers decide by zifn4b · 2017-06-30 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  what to do. That C&D had NO value for Zillow. Even if the blogger couldn't get help and just went away, what good would it have done?
  Doesn't matter. Copyright Law is Copyright Law and copyright owners have a right to exercise their copy rights. If you don't like it, write your Senator(s) and/or Representative(s) for your state.
  
  --
  We'll make great pets
3. Re:This is why you NEVER let the lawyers decide by rahvin112 · 2017-06-30 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  There is lots of assistance out there to help bloggers in free speech cases. Sites like popehat help organize and find help for bloggers being threatened or sued by big companies to shut them up. No blogger should surrender without seeking help in the blogger community.
4. Re:This is why you NEVER let the lawyers decide by Holi · 2017-06-30 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  And under Copyright law there is a very good chance these would have been considered fair use.
  
  --
  Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
5. Re:This is why you NEVER let the lawyers decide by zifn4b · 2017-06-30 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  And under Copyright law there is a very good chance these would have been considered fair use.
  If that's the case McMansion Hell could have made the case that the lawsuit was frivolous and requested attorney fees and possibly damages. I'm not sure why McMansion Hell would agree to settle in that case. I can only assume McMansion Hell and the EFF thought there was merit in Zillow's argument from a Copyright perspective.
  
  --
  We'll make great pets
6. Re:This is why you NEVER let the lawyers decide by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-30 12:28 · Score: 0
  
  I can only ASS-ume ...
  Yes. You have indeed made an ass of yourself.
  If that was not your agenda, then you have failed.
7. Re:This is why you NEVER let the lawyers decide by zifn4b · 2017-07-01 22:34 · Score: 1
  
  I can only ASS-ume ...
  Yes. You have indeed made an ass of yourself.
  If that was not your agenda, then you have failed.
  Wow, nice Ad Hominem there. That will really boost your credibility. IANAL but I am speaking from experience with the legal system. If you don't like what I said then you are criticizing the legal system not me.
  
  --
  We'll make great pets
"no longer source photographs from Zillow" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-29 13:16 · Score: 0

So, she copied the pictures from Zillow. I can't blame them for protecting their IP. The complaints about this are just ridiculous.
There's plenty to complain about wrt Zillow like how they claimed my house here in Seattle was worth $300k less than I sold it for in just one day on the market. The house I bought and just moved to I paid $150k less than their ridiculous zestimate. Their zestimates are complete garbage.
1. Re:"no longer source photographs from Zillow" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-29 13:19 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  So, she copied the pictures from Zillow. I can't blame them for protecting their IP.
  Except it's not "their IP". they just license the pictures from someone else. And even if they DID own the pictures, commentary, criticism, etc., is protected as Fair Use. Zillow is just another corporate bully.
2. Re:"no longer source photographs from Zillow" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-29 13:27 · Score: 0
  
  The Zestimate for my place in Redmond, WA near Microsoft was $184k, but I sold it last month for $343k. I know they hurt the value of my place since a couple of bidders mentioned the ridiculously low Zillow estimate.
3. Re: "no longer source photographs from Zillow" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-29 13:32 · Score: 0
  
  They took my pictures that I paid a professional photographer to take. That sucked since their estimate of my property's value was almost $150k less than I got last month. I would have gotten more, but the buyer checked Zillow's ridiculous estimate then adjusted their bid downward.
4. Re: "no longer source photographs from Zillow" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-29 13:34 · Score: 0
  
  The pics I took myself and gave to MLS were not fair use. They used my pictures without permission and then claimed my place was worth nearly $200,000 less than what I paid. The comps I paid a broker to do showed I paid less than market so Zillow was much more than $200,000 off.
5. Re: "no longer source photographs from Zillow" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-29 13:36 · Score: 0
  
  As you saw, Zillow is a joke. They estimate too high on areas with low demand and ridiculously too low in areas of high demand. I sold my place on May for nearly 200k more than the Zestimate on my property.
6. Re: "no longer source photographs from Zillow" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-29 13:55 · Score: 0
  
  Zillow stole the pics I paid to have made. I don't understand how they get away with this.
7. Re:"no longer source photographs from Zillow" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-29 14:06 · Score: 0
  
  I paid for someone with a real tilt-shift lens to take pictures of my three story house here in Seattle. Zillow republished those pictures without permission. That is not fair use like you claim.
8. Re: "no longer source photographs from Zillow" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-29 14:10 · Score: 0
  
  Their estimates are just crap and cost property owners. I don't understand why they're allowed to get away with this.
9. Re: "no longer source photographs from Zillow" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-29 14:17 · Score: 0
  
  Tilt shift lenses are awesome. I bought one on 1999 when I first became a web dev. I made so much off of that lense.
10. Re: "no longer source photographs from Zillow" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-29 14:21 · Score: 0
  
  Fair use means you can copy all pics. Without that, Zillow would die.
11. Re: "no longer source photographs from Zillow" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-29 14:27 · Score: 0
  
  They have deep pockets so their victims can't afford to sue them.
12. Re: "no longer source photographs from Zillow" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-29 14:29 · Score: 0
  
  They're worth over $3 billion so normal people can't fight them. Plus, they were formed by former Microsoft execs so they have no respect for the law.
13. Re: "no longer source photographs from Zillow" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-29 14:30 · Score: 0
  
  And you can't sue them since they were founded by Microsoft executives. In this state, Microsoft gets away with about anything.
14. Re: "no longer source photographs from Zillow" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-29 14:37 · Score: 0
  
  This. They need to be allowed to steal pics.
15. Re:"no longer source photographs from Zillow" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-29 14:44 · Score: 0
  
  they just license the pictures from someone else.
  They didn't license my pics that I hired someone to make. I spent about fifteen hundred dollars on pics of my property including staging which involved renting furniture. Zillow had now right to those pics, but they used them anyway.
16. Re: "no longer source photographs from Zillow" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-29 14:50 · Score: 0
  
  This. WA let's Microsoft get away with about anything.
17. Re: "no longer source photographs from Zillow" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-29 16:07 · Score: 0
  
  They used my pictures without permission
  Looks like someone didn't read the terms and conditions when they ticked the little check box.
18. Re:"no longer source photographs from Zillow" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-29 17:02 · Score: 0
  
  You could do what I did: edit Zillow listing and report additional bathrooms. I tried adding a boat dock but that did not affect zestimate. I kept adding bathrooms until it reached desired point. For some reason Zillow thinks a studio apartment with 3 bathrooms is very valuable.
19. Re: "no longer source photographs from Zillow" by dcw3 · 2017-06-29 20:48 · Score: 1
  
  Not only are the estimates crap, but the history of their estimates changes, and is completely inaccurate. They literally do not keep an accurate history of their own estimates, and seemingly randomly modify that history. I've known this for quite a while as I've kept track of their estimate of my own home.
  
  --
  Just another day in Paradise
20. Re:"no longer source photographs from Zillow" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-30 01:29 · Score: 0
  
  Were those photos submitted to MLS by your realtor? If so, they got to Zillow that way, legitimately.
21. Re: "no longer source photographs from Zillow" by omnichad · 2017-06-30 01:36 · Score: 1
  
  They steal photos from other web sites. Or the agents signed away rights they didn't have. There are examples all over the web.
22. Re: "no longer source photographs from Zillow" by EndlessNameless · 2017-06-30 02:30 · Score: 1
  
  You really need to know the details before pointing fingers.
  If MLS granted rights to the photos that they never possessed, then MLS is wrong. Zillow is as much a victim as you, especially if they paid for distribution rights that MLS could not legally provide.
  On the other hand, if Zillow is scraping content without securing permission then they are wrong.
  And on the other other hand, if your agreement allows MLS to share your photos with their affiliates, then it's your fault for not understanding the ToS/contract.
  
  --
  
  ---
  According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
23. Re: "no longer source photographs from Zillow" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-30 04:18 · Score: 0
  
  Not enough to buy a decent dictionary and look up "Lense". Let me help: it isn't there because the word is "Lens" (though apparently some third-rate dictionaries have given up and now include it).
Back up a sec...Zillow was right. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-29 13:19 · Score: -1

So, this woman is a total bitch who takes photos of their homes people list on Zillow and use them to make fun of the home owners because she personally finds large cookie cutter homes tasteless. What business is it of hers to get off on making fun of other people's lifestyles.

I think Zillow should have sued the worthless piece of human refuse so far into poverty she'd never see another dollar. I'm very disappointed that they backed off.

As a long time supporter of the EFF, I won't be donating anything to them for a long while.
1. Re:Back up a sec...Zillow was right. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-29 15:41 · Score: 0
  
  You're a Zillow employee, aren't you? Come on, it's ok.
2. Re:Back up a sec...Zillow was right. by Theaetetus · 2017-06-29 15:59 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  So, this woman is a total bitch who takes photos of their homes people list on Zillow and use them to make fun of the home owners because she personally finds large cookie cutter homes tasteless. What business is it of hers to get off on making fun of other people's lifestyles.
  I think Zillow should have sued the worthless piece of human refuse so far into poverty she'd never see another dollar. I'm very disappointed that they backed off.
  As a long time supporter of the EFF, I won't be donating anything to them for a long while.
  ... so, are you a realtor, or are you Zillow's in-house counsel, Christopher Poole?
3. Re:Back up a sec...Zillow was right. by BronsCon · 2017-06-29 16:28 · Score: 1
  
  A Zillow employee would know people don't list on Zillow, they list pretty much anywhere else and Zillow just scrapes those listings for their own use.
  
  The irony of them even mentioning copyright in a C&D letter has had my head spinning since the first story on this came out.
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
4. Re:Back up a sec...Zillow was right. by BronsCon · 2017-06-29 16:30 · Score: 1
  
  What an unfourchanate [SIC] name...
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
5. Re:Back up a sec...Zillow was right. by BronsCon · 2017-06-29 16:32 · Score: 1
  
  On second thought, I suppose it's somewhat of a moot point, now.
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
6. Re:Back up a sec...Zillow was right. by Pseudonym · 2017-06-29 20:20 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  So, this woman is a total bitch who takes photos of their homes people list on Zillow and use them to make fun of the home owners because she personally finds large cookie cutter homes tasteless.
  Kate Wagner is an architecture graduate student who teaches about good architecture partly by critiquing and parodying bad architecture. (And partly by publishing essays about the history of architecture and design.)
  There needs to be a lot more of this in other fields of study. You can't learn about good stuff just by looking at the good stuff. Every programmer knows this: You learn so much about good programming by having to maintain shitty code.
  
  --
  sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
7. Re:Back up a sec...Zillow was right. by AK+Marc · 2017-06-29 22:20 · Score: 1
  
  You are assuming Zillow doesn't have some manner of license from the MLS (usually one per state), and that part of that license is that they must protect the data/images because they are scraping 50 state listings, aggregating "free" stuff that can't otherwise be legally aggregated.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
8. Re:Back up a sec...Zillow was right. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-29 22:22 · Score: 0
  
  No, I reckon he's a McMansion owner and takes the (entirely justified) mockery of these architectural travesties a bit too personally. Probably has small hands, too ;-)
9. Re:Back up a sec...Zillow was right. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-30 00:44 · Score: 1
  
  Did your ugly, shoddily-built yet overpriced house show up on her site and now you're ass blasted about it? Aww, poow widdle baby.
10. Re:Back up a sec...Zillow was right. by BronsCon · 2017-06-30 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  There are quite a few more MLS providers out there than "one per state". A former employer of mine built and maintained websites for a number of real estate brokerages and I'm the one who managed integration with 3rd-party providers, like MLS.
  
  I can assure you ZIllow does not have agreements with more than a handful of them; they scrape data from listing sites, they don't source data from listing services.
  
  I also happen to know a couple of Zillow devs (who have no opinion on the matter discussed in this article, by the way), with whom I've had rather in-depth discussions about sourcing MLS data. In the end, we determined that their job, writing parsers for a bunch of public-facing sites, was easier than mine, as the public-facing sites were more likely to have their data organized in some sane manner and have fewer corner cases than the myriad MLS providers.
  
  I'll add to that, most MLS providers are so protective of their data they won't even let you look at their feeds unless you're a licensed agent or brokerage, and Zillow is not. Thankfully, I had someone else handling the licensing aspect, but I always heard detailed reports of such issues (the guy's my best friend, we talk -- a lot). There's literally no way Zillow has access to enough MLS feeds to not be illegally scraping this data from public-facing sites.
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
11. Re:Back up a sec...Zillow was right. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-30 06:03 · Score: -1
  
  Actually, the disgusting bitch has a degree in music. She's "self-taught" in architecture. And obviously she was taught by a fucking idiot.
  
  She's just pissy that she fucked up her life with a useless degree and can't afford a decent house so she wants to make her self feel better by making fun of her betters.
12. Re:Back up a sec...Zillow was right. by david_thornley · 2017-06-30 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  What business is it of yours what other people do with their websites?
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
13. Re:Back up a sec...Zillow was right. by AK+Marc · 2017-06-30 15:40 · Score: 1
  
  The only MLSs I've worked with were the only one in the state. That's why they were created, so the various unconnected real estate agencies could go to one central multiple listing service to look up listings. Every agency voluntarily joins the MLS and pays to be on it for the exposure.
  
  I'll add to that, most MLS providers are so protective of their data they won't even let you look at their feeds unless you're a licensed agent or brokerage, and Zillow is not.
  Most MLS providers provide a public feed to MLS for exposure. Zillow likely pays for a license. Zillow makes money with ads and referrals. The "true" MLS data is still private. But there's little on that that isn't "public", but mostly formatting, as Zillow reprints almost everything. https://www.inman.com/2016/05/... indicates there's a single MLS for the entire country.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
14. Re:Back up a sec...Zillow was right. by BronsCon · 2017-06-30 16:21 · Score: 1
  
  I worked with 5 in the Bay Area and NorCal alone; FAR, SFAR, BAREIS, RE Infolink, and CCAR Also, one for Northern Texas (NTREIS), and a slew of others that I can't recall of the top of my head as it's been a couple years. Of all of them, only CCAR, SFAR, and RE Infolink provide public MLS portals, but they don't provide all listings or details through those public portals. While there is a hell of a lot of overlap in areas covered by the Bay Area MLS services I listed, there is virtually no overlap in listings between them, because they guard their data like it's gold.
  
  And, while there may be a single MLS for the entire country (there are a handful, actually), they don't list every MLS-listed property; they list only those listed with them by their member brokers, and it costs a pretty penny to be able to list on most MLS providers.
  
  In which state(s) have you worked with MLS? Your experience seems somewhat limited.
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
15. Re:Back up a sec...Zillow was right. by AK+Marc · 2017-06-30 20:51 · Score: 1
  
  Alaska and Texas. Alaska had one and only one MLS, small and simple market. NTREIS is the one I dealt with in Texas, I should have assumed from the name (NT) that there were others, but they were outside my view, and they are all theoretically connectable in the back, though they often choose not to be.
  
  And, while there may be a single MLS for the entire country (there are a handful, actually), they don't list every MLS-listed property; they list only those listed with them by their member brokers, and it costs a pretty penny to be able to list on most MLS providers.
  That's why the people want a Zillow/Trulia. To have a single spot to go to to find all the properties for sale in a specific area. The single national real estate organization can't even provide that list for their members, which is why they are being beat by two guys in a garage.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
16. Re:Back up a sec...Zillow was right. by BronsCon · 2017-07-01 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  they are all theoretically connectable in the back, though they often choose not to be
  Yes, that is part of protecting their data like it's gold. BAREIS, if I recall, was the worst of the lot that I dealt with in that regard. If a broker didn't pay their dues for a given month, they expected us to know this and disable their access before they told us. To add to that, every MLS provider presents their data differently; different field names, some have fields that others don't (not just different names, completely different data), different formats for the same data (some use acres for lot size, some use sq-ft, and most of them don't specify, you just get an integer or a float), different protocols for retrieving the data... trying to incorporate data from more than a handful of these guys is a serious mess.
  
  And I'd have to imagine Zillow's numbers wouldn't be wrong 90% of the time (my personal experience) if they actually used the private MLS data. I remember, when I had access to that data, I used to look up some of the multi-million-dollar homes our realtors would list and see what Zillow had to say about them; often times Zillow would under-report the asking price. I've also heard their "zestimates" are off by anywhere from 10% to 50% -- low, of course -- and I've seen it with my own eyes at least once. It was on a ~~ $5.6M property (as appraised), listed by Zillow as worth $4.2M; They never saw an offer anywhere near the value of the property, with people citing the zestimate as the baseline for their offer, despite the appraisal on file with the city.
  
  MLS services aren't being beaten by two guys in a garage, the two guys in a garage are charlatans who simply haven't been exposed yet. Just wait until a powerful politician tries to sell their house and gets bitten by a lowball zestimate, Zillow's days are numbered.
  
  That said, I haven't heard the same stories about Trulia; but I doubt they buy MLS data, for the same primary reason I know Zillow doesn't: most MLS providers won't offer that data to anyone other than a licensed and practicing Realtor or brokerage.
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
17. Re:Back up a sec...Zillow was right. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-01 06:09 · Score: 0
  
  If trying to incorporate data from more than a handful of those guys is a serious mess, I'd actually expect the sorts of error rates Zillow has. It'd even explain why they can get the asking price wrong--that's something I'd not expect if they're scraping. And given the example you gave of the kind of greed seen in MLS providers? I'd not precisely be surprised if they sold limited access to, say, Zillow & charged the brokers extra for providing information to Zillow for them...
18. Re: Back up a sec...Zillow was right. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-01 07:34 · Score: 0
  
  Please mod up insightful!
  Though funny, it's the insight that makes it so, even if it's not necessarily correct...
19. Re:Back up a sec...Zillow was right. by AK+Marc · 2017-07-01 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  The estimates are the one thing I see everyone going nuts over, but they seem like nothing, compared to the other data given.
  
  A real estimate is both trivial and impossible. The neighborhood numbers are good, as they are real records from real listings/sales, and consistent across time, for properties compared. But yes, you'll never get a good estimate from data. That's why bids come with inspections and the like. The value is not knowable even for the agents in the area. It's all a guess based on comperables.
  
  I know Zillow doesn't: most MLS providers won't offer that data to anyone other than a licensed and practicing Realtor or brokerage.
  I just checked the MLS and Zillow for a house (more than one, but they were all the same result), and Zillow uses the same wording as the MLS. Either it came from the MLS, or the person that listed it with MLS, also listed it with Zillow. How would you explain that?
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
20. Re:Back up a sec...Zillow was right. by BronsCon · 2017-07-01 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  I just checked the MLS and Zillow for a house (more than one, but they were all the same result), and Zillow uses the same wording as the MLS. Either it came from the MLS, or the person that listed it with MLS, also listed it with Zillow...
  ... or Zillow scraped it from the site of a Realtor or brokerage who pays for the privilege of displaying the data publicly.
  
  Which is what the Realtors and brokerages I worked with were doing. Paying, I mean.
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
21. Re:Back up a sec...Zillow was right. by AK+Marc · 2017-07-01 16:43 · Score: 1
  
  Either it came from the MLS, or the person that listed it with MLS, also listed it with Zillow...
  ... or Zillow scraped it from the site of a Realtor or brokerage who pays for the privilege of displaying the data publicly.
  So the realtor pays to list with secret MLS. Then the realtor pays to list it on a public MLS-like service. Then Zillow, without permission, scrapes the public site and sells it? Or the agent pays Zillow to list it?
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
22. Re:Back up a sec...Zillow was right. by BronsCon · 2017-07-01 17:13 · Score: 1
  
  You say you've worked with MLS providers, you should know how this works... But, then, you think there's only one MLS provider in Alaska, where you claim to have worked with the only provider in the state... Did you work with AKMLS, GFMLS, or SEAKMLS?
  
  I've seen you claim to have a lot of experience in a varied array of fields (much as I do, so I'm not saying it's not possible), but I rarely see you exhibiting the knowledge required to take on an entry-level role in those fields, let alone the knowledge someone who actually spent any amount of time working in any of those fields should posses.
  
  I'm sorry if that comes off a bit harsh, but that's my honest observation.
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
23. Re:Back up a sec...Zillow was right. by AK+Marc · 2017-07-02 19:25 · Score: 1
  
  AKMLS. I've never worked with Zillow. I'm trying to see where they get their data from. I've heard people here assert that they are scraping "public" sites, in contravention of the Terms of Use. While others are saying that Zillow has permission. Zillow indicates it uses "public records", and there are lots of entries in Zillow that are obviously court records (foreclosures and the like), as well as wording that matches MLS wording, but not the wording used on the agent's public listing (i.e., the wording matches the MLS, but not the Re/Max or Century 21 listing wording).
  
  I'm asking how, and you are more focused on my credentials to ask that question.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
24. Re:Back up a sec...Zillow was right. by BronsCon · 2017-07-03 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  I'm asking how, and you are more focused on my credentials to ask that question.
  Have you stopped to consider that I am calling your credentials into question because you are displaying extreme ignorance of the subject matter? I already answered your question and your understanding of the topic is so poor that you completely missed that answer.
  
  Because I'm a nice guy, I'll explain it the way I used to when I got paid to onboard Realtors for my previous employer:
  
  Realtors and brokers pay for access to MLS data. This access not only grants them the ability to list their properties with that MLS provider and browse the data, but to also display that data on their own website.
  
  Do you get it now? I'm guessing you still don't, so here are a few examples, just a handful that I've worked with personally:
  Ginny Kavanaugh: Private Listings and MLS Portal
  Brent and Mary Gullixson: Private Listings and MLS Portal
  CAMPI: Private Listings and MLS Portal
  Sereno Group: Private Listings and MLS Portal
  Cowperthwaite: Private Listings and MLS Portal
  Keller WIlliams: Private Listings and MLS Portal
  
  You see all those links that say "MLS Portal"? Zillow would be scraping from links like those.
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Crowdsource the replacement photos by UnknownSoldier · 2017-06-29 13:57 · Score: 1

Simple solution would have been to crowdsourced replacement photos. That way Zillow would have never had a pseudo claim in the first place.
1. Re:Crowdsource the replacement photos by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-29 14:22 · Score: 0
  
  That seems like a great way to end up with an actual copyright violation.
2. Re:Crowdsource the replacement photos by speedplane · 2017-06-29 18:55 · Score: 2
  
  Simple solution would have been to crowdsourced replacement photos.
  Simple? Who is going to spend their day snapshotting houses just so bloggers can write nasty things about them. I'm on the blogger's side in this case, but to think that croudsourcing can solve this is a bit silly.
  
  --
  Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
3. Re:Crowdsource the replacement photos by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-30 01:31 · Score: 0
  
  How are you going to crowdsource interior shots, or exteriors taken on the private property?
4. Re:Crowdsource the replacement photos by omnichad · 2017-06-30 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  Google Street View is even less likely to be protected by copyright, though it's hard to get pictures from the right dates. The photos are automated and there is no human effort in framing the pictures.
5. Re:Crowdsource the replacement photos by speedplane · 2017-06-30 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  Google Street View is even less likely to be protected by copyright, though it's hard to get pictures from the right dates. The photos are automated and there is no human effort in framing the pictures.
  Google Street View images are almost certainly protected by copyright law. There's a huge amount of human effort that goes into framing and aligning images.
  
  --
  Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
6. Re:Crowdsource the replacement photos by omnichad · 2017-06-30 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  Those are aligned and stitched together automatically from a near-360 camera (no framing). What human effort?
7. Re:Crowdsource the replacement photos by david_thornley · 2017-06-30 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  US copyright laws don't recognize effort. They recognize creativity. Did Google employees do anything creative in creating Street View?
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
8. Re:Crowdsource the replacement photos by speedplane · 2017-07-02 17:12 · Score: 1
  
  US copyright laws don't recognize effort. They recognize creativity. Did Google employees do anything creative in creating Street View?
  Yes, there was a ton of creativity. Just because they weren't there to press the shutter button doesn't mean that there wasn't creative process.
  
  --
  Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
9. Re:Crowdsource the replacement photos by speedplane · 2017-07-02 17:14 · Score: 1
  
  Those are aligned and stitched together automatically from a near-360 camera (no framing). What human effort?
  There's a massive amount of human effort to get those images to be stitched together. But regardless, human effort isn't a requirement for copyright protection.
  
  --
  Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
10. Re:Crowdsource the replacement photos by omnichad · 2017-07-03 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  "Sweat of the brow" isn't enough to afford something copyright protection in the US. See telephone books. A minimal amount of creative effort is a requirement. Google Street View is automated. The effort to create the stitching software does not count.
11. Re:Crowdsource the replacement photos by speedplane · 2017-07-03 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  The effort to create the stitching software does not count.
  I never said it did. It's not the effort that counts, it's the creativity in the stitching software. Dealing with various lighting artifacts, providing a cohesive and immersive environmental whole takes creativity, it's nothing like creating a listing in a telephone book.
  
  --
  Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
12. Re:Crowdsource the replacement photos by omnichad · 2017-07-03 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  In the end, that would let you patent the algorithm and copyright the code, not the photos.
13. Re:Crowdsource the replacement photos by speedplane · 2017-07-11 21:08 · Score: 1
  
  In the end, that would let you patent the algorithm and copyright the code, not the photos.
  You could patent the algorithm and copyright the code, but there's a strong argument you could copyright the photos as well.
  
  --
  Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
Re:Back up a sec...Zillow was NOT right. by billrp · 2017-06-29 14:45 · Score: 5, Informative

You need to read up on Kate Wagner: https://hub.jhu.edu/magazine/2...
fair use by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-29 15:51 · Score: 0

Zillow has nothing to stand on. She can use part or all of the photo collection because parody is protected speech.
Zillow owns the copyright on their information collection (like the phone company copyrights the phone book), just a collection of facts.
But excerpts are fair use. She's clear, no wonder EFF jumped on this, total softball.
Pot, Meet Kettle by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-29 15:51 · Score: 0
We've seen so many stories about dodgy Zillow over the years...
The blogger complied with Zillow's demand by raymorris · 2017-06-29 15:52 · Score: 1, Informative

Zillow demanded that the blogger stop cribbing images from Zillow, citing agreements Zillow has with the photographers who own the copyrights. The blogger agreed to do so. Thus the dispute ends.
The headline here is click bait. A perfectly accurate headline would be "blogger agrees to stop unlawfully using copyrighted images without license".
1. Re:The blogger complied with Zillow's demand by radarskiy · 2017-06-29 16:08 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  "blogger agrees to stop unlawfully using copyrighted images without license"
  As Zillow does not own the copyright to the images, it would have no standing to bring a copyright case and it could not itself offer a license.
2. Re:The blogger complied with Zillow's demand by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-29 16:25 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Blogger was not using copyrighted images unlawfully; the use was protected free speech.
3. Re:The blogger complied with Zillow's demand by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-29 16:27 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  The headline here is click bait. A perfectly accurate headline would be "blogger agrees to stop unlawfully using copyrighted images without license".
  No, it wouldn't, because what actually happened is that the entire archive of posts she's made using pictures from Zillow will REMAIN ONLINE -- only new posts going forward will source the images from elsewhere. Zillow did not want to allow her to do this.
4. Re:The blogger complied with Zillow's demand by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-29 18:35 · Score: -1
  
  If Zillow don't want their photos to be used by people then they should not put them on the open internet.
5. Re:The blogger complied with Zillow's demand by speedplane · 2017-06-29 18:50 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  As Zillow does not own the copyright to the images, it would have no standing to bring a copyright case and it could not itself offer a license.
  Assuming this is true (I haven't read Zillow's TOS, so I'm not sure), Zillow could still bring a claim of tortious interference of business relations or similar claims. Given that the blogger's use of the images is probably fair use, Zillow would likely eventually lose, but it would cost the blogger six or seven figures to get to that result. The world is unfair.
  
  --
  Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
6. Re:The blogger complied with Zillow's demand by Kkloe · 2017-06-29 20:01 · Score: 2
  
  Zillow might not own the copyright of the images, it could still own the right to have full distribution rights on where the images might be shown if they have struck such agreement with the photographer. And as the blogger will not show the images then Zillow seems to have presented such evidence, they could even have a agreement where they are to represent the photographer for copyright issues with third parties and thus be able to claim copyright on the behalf of the photographer.
7. Re:The blogger complied with Zillow's demand by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-30 01:45 · Score: 0
  
  The blogger didn't agree. The blogger was forced to do so because of intimidation. Being forced to do something is not the same as choosing to agree to the action. You could argue the outcome is the same, but then you're being disingenuous about the situation. If the blogger hadn't been worried about the time and cost involved with fighting highly-paid lawyer(s), she would likely still be making the same content. But because her resources couldn't match that situation, she had to stop. She's back at it now, which means she didn't want to stop, albeit the content is slightly different because of the specter of assholery like Zillow's.
8. Re:The blogger complied with Zillow's demand by ComputerInsultant · 2017-06-30 02:01 · Score: 2
  
  Please read the full EFF response letter. https://www.eff.org/files/2017... Zillow's TOS do not and *cannot* contain any basis for action in this case. Even the attribution line below the photos saying that they were found on Zillow.com is nominative fair use of the trademarked name.
  
  --
  engineers are all basically high-functioning autistics who have no idea how normal people do stuff
9. Re:The blogger complied with Zillow's demand by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-30 02:07 · Score: 0
  
  Except with EFF in the picture the blogger won't be paying the costs. After their defeat Zillow would, after they've lost the case, hence their public turn around.
10. Re:The blogger complied with Zillow's demand by painandgreed · 2017-06-30 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  Zillow might not own the copyright of the images, it could still own the right to have full distribution rights on where the images might be shown if they have struck such agreement with the photographer. And as the blogger will not show the images then Zillow seems to have presented such evidence, they could even have a agreement where they are to represent the photographer for copyright issues with third parties and thus be able to claim copyright on the behalf of the photographer.
  My understanding of Zillow as explained by my realtor when I was buying a house less than a year ago, is that they pretty much just use the same realty services that realtors use, or at least mine. My realtor would have me look at their website and photos, but I could go to Zillow and see the exact same info. So, it would depend on that service's TOS.
Re:Back up a sec...Zillow was NOT right. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-29 18:49 · Score: -1

Yep, that's the impression I got of her.

She's a disgusting piece of shit.
Don't believe the hype! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-29 23:38 · Score: 0

There is no such thing as bad publicity. This was free advertising for everyone.
Yay! Now: remember to support the EFF. by sootman · 2017-06-30 05:53 · Score: 1

Donations to the EFF are (U.S.) tax-deductible and, if you work for a big company, probably eligible for donation matching.

--
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
1. Re:Yay! Now: remember to support the EFF. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-30 06:11 · Score: 0
  
  Fuck the EFF. I've supported them for years, but never again after this.
2. Re:Yay! Now: remember to support the EFF. by david_thornley · 2017-06-30 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  Which probably means you never supported them and just wanted to publicly dump on them more. People almost never go from support to eternal non-support because of one incident that doesn't really concern them.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Too late by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-30 11:49 · Score: 0

Too late Zillow. The Internet never forgets.