4 ms·

Zillow likely has a clause in their contracts with MLS/wherever else they get these pictures, that they cant allow the pics to be used for any other purpose oth

Zillow likely has a clause in their contracts with MLS/wherever else they get these pictures, that they cant allow the pics to be used for any other purpose other than for posting on Zillow. They are trying to enforce this since they have apparently gotten dinged by suppliers in the past. Since they found a blog that explicitly stated "i got these pics from Zillow," they had a lawyer who had apparently been working there ~1 month send out a standard C&D letter, even though the facts didnt exactly fit (when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, etc.). It obviously became a PR disaster for them but could also have just gone the opposite way where a no name blog using their pics stopped doing it. It was obviously a mistake but I'm sure there was no malice on their part, the rash of people rushing to condemn them for stifling free speech are being silly. It was a standard process thing that didnt quite fit and got blown out of proportion, i'm sure everyone has encountered some form of it in their job before. All she has/had to do was take out that statement that 'it's from Zillow' and the problem goes away, Zillow doesnt care where you get pics from as long as they have no liability.

monochromatic 9y ago
> Zillow likely has a clause in their contracts with MLS/wherever else they get these pictures, that they cant allow the pics to be used for any other purpose other than for posting on Zillow. They are trying to enforce this since they have apparently gotten dinged by suppliers in the past. You seem to be just guessing about what might be in the contract, but I'll run with it. Unless there's some affirmative duty to police in the contract, why couldn't they just ignore McMansion Hell? Ignoring is not the same as giving license.
- non_sequitur 9y ago
  Of course I'm guessing, I don't work at Zillow and I've never seen the contract. A similar guess was also made by The Verge - "I’m all but certain some brokerage or MLS provider saw Wagner’s blog, got mad that their photos were being used to make fun of the houses they were selling, and complained to Zillow. And Zillow’s lawyers probably thought sending a scary letter would solve the problem, because that’s what lawyers are paid to do." Even if there's no affirmative duty to police, if you become aware of something that potentially makes you in breach in a contract, you're supposed to try to stop it. Otherwise if you get sued for breach it looks even worse for you - "they knew about it and were too lazy to do anything to stop it"
  - monochromatic 9y ago
    If there's no affirmative duty, how could this possibly put them in breach?
- kabdib 9y ago
  Read about estoppel and laches. Ignoring can indeed be the same as giving permission.
bradleyjg 9y ago
Unless the contract assigns the copyright to Zillow then it doesn't matter what it says. A contract can't generally be enforced as against third parties. And if Zillow can't sue then it is unethical* to threaten to sue. However, to be fair to the lawyer, the copyright claim is secondary. The primary claim in the C&D is a violation of the terms of service. *In the legal sense, not in the moral sense. Though maybe that too.

monochromatic 9y ago

> Zillow likely has a clause in their contracts with MLS/wherever else they get these pictures, that they cant allow the pics to be used for any other purpose other than for posting on Zillow. They are trying to enforce this since they have apparently gotten dinged by suppliers in the past. You seem to be just guessing about what might be in the contract, but I'll run with it. Unless there's some affirmative duty to police in the contract, why couldn't they just ignore McMansion Hell? Ignoring is not the same as giving license.

non_sequitur 9y ago
Of course I'm guessing, I don't work at Zillow and I've never seen the contract. A similar guess was also made by The Verge - "I’m all but certain some brokerage or MLS provider saw Wagner’s blog, got mad that their photos were being used to make fun of the houses they were selling, and complained to Zillow. And Zillow’s lawyers probably thought sending a scary letter would solve the problem, because that’s what lawyers are paid to do." Even if there's no affirmative duty to police, if you become aware of something that potentially makes you in breach in a contract, you're supposed to try to stop it. Otherwise if you get sued for breach it looks even worse for you - "they knew about it and were too lazy to do anything to stop it"
- monochromatic 9y ago
  If there's no affirmative duty, how could this possibly put them in breach?
kabdib 9y ago
Read about estoppel and laches. Ignoring can indeed be the same as giving permission.

bradleyjg 9y ago

Unless the contract assigns the copyright to Zillow then it doesn't matter what it says. A contract can't generally be enforced as against third parties. And if Zillow can't sue then it is unethical* to threaten to sue. However, to be fair to the lawyer, the copyright claim is secondary. The primary claim in the C&D is a violation of the terms of service. *In the legal sense, not in the moral sense. Though maybe that too.