Connect with us

Business News

Zillow sued for $81 million by real estate photographer

(BUSINESS NEWS) Real estate giant Zillow is being sued by a California photographer who intimates that the company has scraped the images without anyone’s permission.

Published

on

zillow sued by gutenberg represented by mathew higbee of higbee associates

California photographer, George Gutenberg filed a lawsuit today against Zillow, alleging copyright violations for their use of his real estate photos, indicating that Zillow scrapes images from Multiple Listing Services (MLSs) rather than using listing data syndicated to them.

Court documents request a bench trial, damages (plus attorney’s fees and court costs), and that Zillow stop using Gutenberg’s copyrighted images. Under 17 U.S.C. § 504, Gutenberg is seeking “an amount to be proven or, in the alternative, at Plaintiff’s election, an award for statutory damages against Defendant in an amount up to $150,000.00 for each infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §
504(c), whichever is larger.”

If Gutenberg were to win, Exhibit A of the lawsuit cites 543 images in question across 17 listings on Zillow, which would total $81,450,000 or more.

The issue of real estate photography copyrights has long been convoluted. There are six stakeholders that have consistently argued that they own images used in real estate listings: homeowners, real estate photographers, the listing agent, the broker, MLSs, and real estate listing websites.

The argument that homeowners own the rights to images taken of their property has very little merit, and we have uncovered no copyright lawsuits that a homeowner has won regarding photography.

One can see why an agent or broker believes they have the right to the images they’ve paid for, but those parties don’t always read their photographer’s agreement prior to paying their invoice, while MLSs and websites have slid into their Terms of Service that they own the copyright once it is uploaded to their servers (be it directly or via syndication).

But what is different about Gutenberg’s position than many others is that he retains the copyright to all photographs taken of each property, allowing the agent a “limited license to use the photographs for up to one-year purposes of marketing the property.”

Wouldn’t that include Zillow? Nope.

The license “expressly states that it is not transferrable and prohibits third party use without permission from Gutenberg.”

Unlike many photographers, Gutenberg actually registers his images with the U.S. Copyright Office.

Mathew Higbee of Higbee and Associates issued the following statement to The American Genius:

“Mr. Gutenberg has a robust working relationship with many top real estate agents in southern California and across the nation. Mr. Gutenberg’s clients gladly pay to license his work knowing that Mr. Gutenberg’s high-quality photographs and signature style add significant value to their listings. In addition to real estate listings, Mr. Gutenberg also licenses of his photographs for editorial and commercial use in print and online publications, advertisements, and retail and commercial businesses.

The agents that engage Mr. Gutenberg understand that they are permitted to use his photographs for the limited purpose of promoting their real estate listing, which includes placing the photographs on the MLS. Content placed on the MLS is only available for the life of the listing and is immediately removed when the listing is sold or otherwise taken off the market. Mr. Gutenberg is not aware of any of his real estate clients directly syndicating his photographs to Zillow, nor is Mr. Gutenberg aware of any of his real estate clients exceeding the scope of rights granted in their individual licensing agreements with him.

Rather, it appears that Zillow, owner of the largest real estate website in the world, indiscriminately copies millions of photographs per day off of the MLS in an effort to build what they refer to as their ‘Living Database of All Homes,’ which Zillow has leveraged into multi-billion dollar company. Zillow’s unlawful copying comes at the expense of creators and rights holders such as Mr. Gutenberg who depend on payment of reasonable licensing fees by those who exploit their works.”

The implication is that the clients are not in violation of the copyright if they didn’t syndicate listings to Zillow or upload them directly. A claim that is far heavier than a standard copyright lawsuit, and stands to call into question Zillow’s practices.

The internet has long changed how people copyright images, who owns them, what agreements each party enters as they upload and/or syndicate data to third party sites. This isn’t the first lawsuit of this nature, nor the last.

We’ll keep you updated as this lawsuit progresses.

Lani is the Chief Operating Officer at The American Genius - she has co-authored a book, co-founded BASHH and Austin Digital Jobs, and is a seasoned business writer and editorialist with a penchant for the irreverent.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
22 Comments

22 Comments

  1. Roland Estrada

    September 17, 2018 at 8:58 pm

    This practice by photographers needs to be stopped by market forces. As far as I’m concerned, If I pay for a photograph, I own the right to it I don’t give a crap what the photographer thinks. As agents, we need to tell a photographers up front if they have any type of agreement wherein I give up rights of ownership of any kind they need to move on and the will find another photographer.

    We can stop this weasel BS practice but we nee to collectively make a effort to do so.

    • David C

      September 18, 2018 at 3:30 pm

      Well aren’t you a real peach…. Way to damage your reputation by showcasing ignorance. I recommend a basic Google search of US copyright law. Question for you: when you pay for a book, do you also believe that you now own it and can reprint it with impunity?

    • Robert

      September 18, 2018 at 3:44 pm

      It’s called US Copyright law! By default you don’t own jack. Good luck finding any good photographers to work for you! LOL it’s no different than the song you buy off iTunes. You don’t own the song. You just own the right to listen to the music. You don’t own the right to profit or resell.

    • Robert

      September 18, 2018 at 3:57 pm

      Nobody cares about your concern which goes against US Copyright law. The photographer by default owns the copyright unless the transfer of copyright is in writing. I would quit before I bowed to the demands of an idiot realtor like you. How about we quit the BS practice of commissions and put all realtors on a fixed salary.

    • Dan

      September 18, 2018 at 7:54 pm

      Realtors who have no clue how the market functions and still think they are able to help their clients. Wise up, be professional and learn how the law protects the market from thieves who think exactly like you.

    • Rob

      September 19, 2018 at 6:33 am

      Hey homie…
      Next time you buy your favorite Beyonce tune, please call her and tell her that you’re the new owner and that she can go take a flyer.
      Get back to me with her lawyers response. I’ll wait.

    • George

      September 20, 2018 at 12:46 pm

      @ Roland Estrada,

      I think you are misunderstanding this entirely. The Realtor are licensed to use the images in all the customary ways in marketing the property, as well as themselves.

      The complaints is against a 3rd party, that is using the images to enrich themselves without authority, and without compensating the original creator!

      The fact that you “don’t give a crap what the photographer thinks” says a lot about the value you put on your photographer, and the work that person puts in to try to help market your listings.

    • George

      September 20, 2018 at 7:49 pm

      I think you are completely missing the point here. The complaint is NOT directed towards my Realtor clients. They are able to use the images in marketing of the properties, as well as themselves.

      Th complaint is directed towards a 3rd party, who’s entire business model is based on the use of images that does NOT belong to them, that they do NOT have authorization to use, and that they have not paid for.

      Just to correct the record, there is no $81 mil claim in the complaint. While it makes for a good headline, it is not what the suit specifies.

      The fact that you “don’t give a crap what the photographer thinks” reflects more on your how you value the contribution a professional photographer brings to your marketing efforts. Thankfully, my clients appreciate what I bring to the table.

    • Ken Brown

      September 20, 2018 at 9:14 pm

      Roland, photography is the same as any other creative endeavor such as music, painting, movies and TV. Unless a specific contract is made that assigns the ownership of the photos or the photographer is an employee, the photographer is granted an automatic Copyright as soon as the shutter is clicked. A good real estate photographer will have discussed with their clients the licensing terms for the use of the images and most pros included all of the permissions needed to market a home in all media until the home is sold or removed from the market. Many photographers like me also allow the agent to use the images to market themselves on web sites and brochures. We want you to do well and continue hiring us.

      Zillow is not a mom ‘n pop entity struggling to pay its bills and instead of paying for image or making them on their own, they are copying them from the internet to create a service that they earn money from. It is akin to copying popular songs and selling mix cd’s online. There are ways to license those songs and do it legally. Photographers charge very low rates for real estate marketing images in the hopes of selling them to others.

  2. Lane Bailey

    September 17, 2018 at 9:22 pm

    I spent 10 years as a professional photographer before being a real estate agent. Even at the heights of commercial photography, where clients are paying thousands of dollars per day plus expenses for a photographer, they don’t own the image… they negotiate rights to use it. If they buy it outright (and sometimes they do) they pay an often hefty additional fee for that.

    What is shameful is MLSs saying that they own all images that are uploaded to them… where I am there are two different MLSs that serve us. Most good agents are members of both. But technically, if I upload the same pictures to both, I have violated the copyright protections of one or the other. Because after loading them to the first, I no longer own the rights to load them to the second.

  3. David Eichler

    September 19, 2018 at 2:02 pm

    It is standard practice for professional photographers to retain copyright to their photos and sell usage rights to their clients for specific purposes. It is also typical for the usage licenses to state that, without the photographer’s written consent, the usage license may not be transferred and no third parties may use the images for any other purposes.

    I can state for a fact that many real estate agents do purchase usage rights to their listing photos, rather than owning the photos outright, and they understand exactly what they are doing. It is also my strong impression that many real estate agents do not like Zillow and do not submit their listings to Zillow. I have had real estate agents tell me they do not do so and have seen a variety of comments to this effect by real estate agents in various Internet forums.

    The business model known as rights management, where the party that creates copyrightable material retains ownership of the copyright and licenses usage rights to others for a fee, is no different for photographers than it is for writers, software developers, movie producers, architects, artists and others who create intellectual property.

    If a real estate agent does not wish to purchase usage rights and would rather own the photos outright, he or she can probably fine a photographer who will sell them the copyright. However, such photographers are likely to be at the lower end of the skill-talent range. Ultimately, it is a question of how much value the photos have to the client.

  4. Pingback: Real Estate Giant Zillow Sued for $81 Million by Photographer - World Photography

  5. David Eichler

    September 22, 2018 at 2:10 am

    “If Gutenberg were to win, Exhibit A of the lawsuit cites 543 images in question across 17 listings on Zillow, which would total $81,450,000 or more.” First of all, this is a very badly written sentence. Second, it does not adequately describe the potential award, which could well be lower, and does not explain that it could only be higher if the court awards the plaintiff court costs and attorney’s fees, since the maximum award available for infringement itself is $150,000 per infringement. Furthermore, this maximum award is only available if the plaintiff can prove that the defendant’s infringement was willful (which seems to me to be likely in the case of a company such as Zillow). Otherwise, the maximum possible award would be $30,000 per infringement if the court determines that infringement was not willful.

  6. Pingback: Photographer Sues Zillow for $81M for Scraping His Real Estate Photos – Photography News World

  7. Pingback: Real Estate in Brief: FTC website crackdown, Zillow lawsuit and more

  8. Pingback: Real Estate in Brief: FTC website crackdown, Zillow lawsuit and more

  9. Pingback: Photographer Sues Zillow $81M for Scraping His Real Estate Photos

  10. Pingback: Real Estate in Brief: FTC website crack-down, HUD hiring for loyalty, and Zillow's lawsuit

  11. Pingback: Real Estate in Brief: FTC website crack-down, HUD hiring for loyalty, and Zillow's lawsuit

  12. Pingback: Real Estate Giant Zillow Sued for $81 Million by Photographer • Feedster

  13. Pingback: The Real Estate Guide to Photo Usage Rights - Pearl Insurance

  14. Ben Dover

    December 3, 2018 at 9:47 pm

    Zillow is now dictating the value of property rather than the market. They need to be stopped.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Business News

Big retailers are opting for refunds instead of returns

(BUSINESS NEWS) Due to increased shipping costs, big companies like Amazon and Walmart are opting to give out a refund rather than accepting small items returned.

Published

on

Package delivery people holding deliveries. Refund instead of returns are common now.

The holidays are over, and now some people are ready to return an item that didn’t quite work out or wasn’t on their Christmas list. Whatever the reason, some retailers are giving customers a refund and letting them keep the product, too.

When Vancouver, Washington resident, Lorie Anderson, tried returning makeup from Target and batteries from Walmart she had purchased online, the retailers told her she could keep or donate the products. “They were inexpensive, and it wouldn’t make much financial sense to return them by mail,” said Ms. Anderson, 38. “It’s a hassle to pack up the box and drop it at the post office or UPS. This was one less thing I had to worry about.”

Amazon.com Inc., Walmart Inc., and other companies are changing the way they handle returns this year, according to a report by The Wall Street Journal (WSJ). The companies are using artificial intelligence (AI) to weigh the costs of processing physical returns versus just issuing a refund and having customers keep the item.

For instance, if it costs more to ship an inexpensive or larger item than it is to refund the purchase price, companies are giving customers a refund and telling them to keep the products also. Due to an increase in online shopping, it makes sense for companies to change how they manage returns.

Locus Robotics chief executive Rick Faulk told the Journal that the biggest expense when it comes to processing returns is shipping costs. “Returning to a store is significantly cheaper because the retailer can save the freight, which can run 15% to 20% of the cost,” Faulk said.

But, returning products to physical stores isn’t something a lot of people are wanting to do. According to the return processing firm Narvar, online returns increased by 70% in 2020. With people still hunkered down because of the pandemic, changing how to handle returns is a good thing for companies to consider to reduce shipping expenses.

While it might be nice to keep the makeup or batteries for free, don’t expect to return that new PS5 and get to keep it for free, too. According to WSJ, a Walmart spokesperson said the company lets someone keep a refunded item only if the company doesn’t plan on reselling it. And, besides taking the economic costs into consideration, the companies look at the customer’s purchase history as well.

Continue Reading

Business News

Google workers have formed company’s first labor union

(BUSINESS NEWS) A number of Google employees have agreed to commit 1% of their salary to labor union dues to support employee activism and fight workplace discrimination.

Published

on

Google complex with human sized chessboard, where a labor union has been formed.

On Monday morning, Google workers announced that they have formed a union with the support of the Communications Workers of America (CWA), the largest communications and media labor union in the U.S.

The new union, Alphabet Workers Union (AWU) was organized in secret for about a year and formed to support employee activism, and fight discrimination and unfairness in the workplace.

“From fighting the ‘real names’ policy, to opposing Project Maven, to protesting the egregious, multi-million dollar payouts that have been given to executives who’ve committed sexual harassment, we’ve seen first-hand that Alphabet responds when we act collectively. Our new union provides a sustainable structure to ensure that our shared values as Alphabet employees are respected even after the headlines fade,” stated Program Manager Nicki Anselmo in a press release.

AWU is the first union in the company’s history, and it is open to all employees and contractors at any Alphabet company in the United States and Canada. The cost of membership is 1% of an employee’s total compensation, and the money collected will be used to fund the union organization.

In a response to the announcement, Google’s Director of People Operations, Kara Silverstein, said, “We’ve always worked hard to create a supportive and rewarding workplace for our workforce. Of course, our employees have protected labor rights that we support. But as we’ve always done, we’ll continue engaging directly with all our employees.”

Unlike other labor unions, the AWU is considered a “Minority Union”. This means it doesn’t need formal recognition from the National Labor Relations Board. However, it also means Alphabet can’t be forced to meet the union’s demands until a majority of employees support it.

So far, the number of members in the union represents a very small portion of Google’s workforce, but it’s growing every day. When the news of the union was first announced on Monday, roughly 230 employees made up the union. Less than 24 hours later, there were 400 employees in the union, and now that number jumped to over 500 employees.

Unions among Silicon Valley’s tech giants are rare, but labor activism is slowly picking up speed, especially with more workers speaking out and organizing.

“The Alphabet Workers Union will be the structure that ensures Google workers can actively push for real changes at the company, from the kinds of contracts Google accepts to employee classification to wage and compensation issues. All issues relevant to Google as a workplace will be the purview of the union and its members,” stated the AWU in a press release.

Continue Reading

Business News

Ticketmaster caught red-handed hacking, hit with major fines

(BUSINESS NEWS) Ticketmaster has agreed to pay $10 million to resolve criminal charges after hacking into a competitor’s network specifically to sabotage.

Published

on

Person open on hacking computer screen, typing on keyboard.

Live Nation’s Ticketmaster agreed to pay $10 million to resolve criminal charges after admitting to hacking into a competitor’s network and scheming to “choke off” the ticket seller company and “cut [victim company] off at the knees”.

Ticketmaster admitted hiring former employee, Stephen Mead, from startup rival CrowdSurge (which merged with Songkick) in 2013. In 2012, Mead signed a separation agreement to keep his previous company’s information confidential. When he joined Live Nation, Mead provided that confidential information to the former head of the Artist Services division, Zeeshan Zaidi, and other Ticketmaster employees. The hacking information shared with the company included usernames, passwords, data analytics, and other insider secrets.

“When employees walk out of one company and into another, it’s illegal for them to take proprietary information with them. Ticketmaster used stolen information to gain an advantage over its competition, and then promoted the employees who broke the law. This investigation is a perfect example of why these laws exist – to protect consumers from being cheated in what should be a fair market place,” said FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge Sweeney.

In January 2014, Mead gave a Ticketmaster executive multiple sets of login information to Toolboxes, the competitor’s password-protected app that provides real-time data about tickets sold through the company. Later, at an Artists Services Summit, Mead logged into a Toolbox and demonstrated the product to Live Nation and Ticketmaster employees. Information collected from the Toolboxes were used to “benchmark” Ticketmaster’s offerings against the competitor.

“Ticketmaster employees repeatedly – and illegally – accessed a competitor’s computers without authorization using stolen passwords to unlawfully collect business intelligence,” said Acting U.S. Attorney DuCharme in a statement. “Further, Ticketmaster’s employees brazenly held a division-wide ‘summit’ at which the stolen passwords were used to access the victim company’s computers, as if that were an appropriate business tactic.”

The hacking violations were first reported in 2017 when CrowdSurge sued Live Nation for antitrust violations. A spokesperson told The Verge, “Ticketmaster terminated both Zaidi and Mead in 2017, after their conduct came to light. Their actions violated our corporate policies and were inconsistent with our values. We are pleased that this matter is now resolved.”

To resolve the case, Ticketmaster will pay a $10 million criminal penalty, create a compliance and ethics program, and report to the United States Attorney’s Office annually during a three-year term. If the agreement is breached, Ticketmaster will be charged with: “One count of conspiracy to commit computer intrusions, one count of computer intrusion for commercial advantage, one count of computer intrusion in furtherance of fraud, one count of wire fraud conspiracy and one count of wire fraud.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Our Great Partners

The
American Genius
news neatly in your inbox

Subscribe to our mailing list for news sent straight to your email inbox.

Emerging Stories

Get The American Genius
neatly in your inbox

Subscribe to get business and tech updates, breaking stories, and more!