3 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 o
by 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 agoOf 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 agoIf there's no affirmative duty, how could this possibly put them in breach?
- kabdib 9y agoRead about estoppel and laches. Ignoring can indeed be the same as giving permission.