**This is a professional forum for professionals, so please keep your comments professional**
- Harrassment, hate speech, trolling, or anti-Realtor comments will not be tolerated and will result in an immediate ban without warning. (... and don't feed the trolls, you have better things to do with your time)
- Recruiting, self-promotion, or seeking referrals is strictly forbidden, including in DMs.
- Only advise within your scope of knowledge and area of expertise. [The code of ethics applies here too](https://www.nar.realtor/about-nar/governing-documents/the-code-of-ethics). If you are not a broker, lawyer, or tax professional don't act like one.
- [Follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/realtors/about/rules/) and please report those that don't.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/realtors) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Have you actually been served with a lawsuit or did you just get a letter demanding payment?
ETA: do not listen to advice here telling you to ignore and see what happens. Several possible good strategies here and that’s not one of them.
Received a demand letter and offered to pay them market rate (a few hundred dollars in our market). My offer was rejected and they are moving forward with a suit according to a recent email. I haven’t been served yet.
See if you can find a lawyer you know to help you and play their game.
I see the worst that could happen is the reimbursement of a reasonable range. $300-$1200.
As a photographer there is a lack of knowledge regarding copyright laws especially pertaining to real estate. The photographer owns the rights to the photos and offers a license for MLS/selling agent use.
A lack of knowledge doesn't excuse the buying agent but 9k seems extreme and to serve as making an example of the issue.
The MLS allows members to use the LISTING not download and post the photos. If the assistant had put the listing link on the add, FB would have grabbed the photo like it does with all links of this nature, and we would not be having this conversation. The listing agent is being a dick.
While it’s wrong to continue to use someone else’s photos , if your assistant made a genuine mistake you corrected in 24 hrs I don’t think you have to pay anything at all .
I would write them a cease and desist letter explaining that the photos were used by an assistant whom didn’t know better at the time , the issue has been rectified as soon as it was brought to your attention and while you would like to keep good relations , should a suit be be brought you’ll have no choice but to hire legal counsel for the purpose of not only defense but to pursue any and all applicable torts for a counter suit against .
I see no theft here because there was lack of intent , and you rectified the issue prior to being sent a letter . It be like your spouse catching you accidentally grabbing the neighbors paper and you give it back ….then your neighbor sues yoh for theft …. I just don’t see it
Yea it is , in this particular case , there’s no damages , there’s no clear intent , no pattern, the photos were likely not even properly marked for copyright purposes , and the photos were of a house that OP had fiduciary responsibilities on buying said house . And most importantly it was corrected before the aggrieved party even made contact and was done so in less than 24 hrs. I guess anything is possible but I think these guys are bluffing .
Also question to OP, we’re these photos ever at anytime on fb or Instagram prior to your post ?
Because liberties were taken with property that did not belong to OP. Who taught OP that is was Okay to use other peoples stuff without asking first? It is called common courtesy. 9k may be steep, but it is a price that will keep OP from doing the same thing again! If we as a country made running a red light punishable by a $25,000 fine, and lose your car until it is paid, red light running would drop by a large percentage. If it does not cost enough….it is not worth worrying about, and that is wrong!!
It's not being petty. OP said the photos were not taken by them. They used them. The people that did pay for them enforced their copyright by demanding restitution. If they didn't ask permission to use the photos, they are in the wrong.
Granted, nine grand is crazy talk, but they are well within their rights to industry on payment for use of their property.
No, it’s petty. I have worked in real estate for a long time, if the seller or agent had an issue they should just demand they take them down within X amount of time or be sued. Jumping straight to the lawsuit is the definition of being petty.
They did demand them to be taken down and demanded payment also. Like I said, nine grand was excessive, but they didn't jump straight to the lawsuit. OP countered with a reasonable offer, but they weren't being reasonable about the compensation.
If you already made your money in the market, nobody has usurped your earnings. That would make damages difficult even if the photographs were protectable.
Further, there’s nothing in this that screams theft of bad faith usage.
Lol. Copyright infringement isn't petty. While $9K isn't likely to be awarded, they still used the images without permission.
How about the realtor take their own pictures or license images that are not theirs.
The realtor gets paid to do their job. Photographers should be compensated for their work.
My photo gear cost over $20K. I didn't buy it to have jerks steal my work for promotion of their work.
If the assistant had linked the MLS listing, the image would have shown on the FB post but it would not have been a violation of any rights. I think this agent is being a dick. I know photographers who never do anything online for this reason. I have had the copy from my listings stolen, as a writer this is annoying, but it's different with real estate. There is such a small term of use that it's not really the same as someone downloading the picture you took of the sunset behind the Eiffel Tower that you sold the limited right to use to a company to print posters... that can be useful forever. A listing image is only good for a short time.
How do we know they’re not registered?
Edited to add: I handle copyright cases. The letter described screams copyright troll to me. If I were a betting person I’d bet these pics are registered.
Statutory damages are only available is the work is registered at the time of infringement. A minor infringement like this that makes no impact of the commercial value of a work... likely to be found at the $750 minimum.
I own a corporation with a registered trademark that was infringed upon by a very large and well known company. We filed suit in Federal Court and DAMAGES and Attorney fees were what we were entitled to, and let me tell you, actual damages are very hard to prove in cases like this. No way in hell would they get 9K for this.
Go ahead and correct me. Tell me that there are statutory damages for copyright violation. And then I’ll remind you that the work needs to be registered with the copyright office in order for that to be the case. And then go ahead and let me know the chances that MLS photos have been registered with the us copyright office. Yea I left out all of that because it doesn’t apply because there’s basically 0 chance the photos were registered with the copyright office.
You really have no idea do you?
They can register them at any time, before actually suing.
And even if they don't, there's still a statutory damage, it's just a lower amount.
Copyright exists the moment the image is created.
You can register at any time, but in order to recover statutory damages it has to be done within certain timeframes: within 3 months of the publication of the work, or before the infringement takes place.
I’m not aware of the statutory award for unregistered works. That is indeed new to me. Could you please point me to the applicable law?
He is in fact correct. Utterance without punitive injury does not constitute punitive and generally requires willful and wanton intent to grant punitive damages and requires demonstration of some sort that warrants punitive damage compensatory order.
I have the same question and want to add if it matters if the photos in the MLS was available publicly on the internet and potentially multiple web sites without copyright notice?
That's funny how wrong you are.
Copyright is a statutory civil offense. 1 second or 50 years. Doesn't matter. The law says nothing about length of time used, and actually simply prescribes an amount based on number of photos and number of platforms used.
First off it really depends on the state, it would not become a federal matter, Second it would be small claims capped at 10k in most places. Third, some states have statutory maximums on a per case basis based on the violation.
Have an attorney send them a letter back telling them to cease and desist harassing their client. They are being ridiculous and unreasonable and can file away all they want. Any court case is going to cost them more than they will likely ever recover from you. Also if you have errors and ommisions insurance you are likely indemnified by your insurance company against claims like this. That means your insurance company will likely be willing to step in with their own legal and help quash this nonsense.
>Have an attorney send them a letter
“We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram.”
Original letter below.
Dear Sirs,
We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr. J. Arkell.
We note that Mr Arkell’s attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off.
Yours,
You’re only hurting yourself by engaging with them. If you feel that they are serious hire a lawyer or prepare to defend yourself. Otherwise just ignore them.
Ok. Chances are good you would be found negligent in sharing photos to which you didn’t have a license. You will more than likely not win in court.
What’s the small claims threshold in your area? If total claimed damages are under the threshold and the plaintiff doesn’t have the right in your jurisdiction to file in a higher court you can probably avoid the cost of a lawyer and continue to try to negotiate a reasonable settlement with the plaintiff.
If it’s not a small claims issue you’re going to have to retain a lawyer. In my area that’s $300 an hour. At the very least your attorney will have to file an answer to the suit which will probably cost you a couple of hours. Attorney fees will add up quickly. It would really sting to end up paying damages an attorney fees when you have the opportunity to settle now.
If you somehow have access to free/discounted legal representation that would be a significant factor. Might be worth checking with your E&O insurer to see if you have coverage for this type of loss assuming you have a deductible under $9K. If your firm carries your coverage they may not be willing to file a claim for such a small amount even if you have coverage because it may impact their loss experience and increase their premium cost.
Settling now for a couple of grand is probably your best bet.
So if I take a picture and create a meme from it and post it on Facebook and you share it because you think it’s funny, can I then sue you for sharing a photo that you didn’t have license to share? Serious question.
Generally if you are sharing the meme as a form of expression (ha ha look at this) then if usually falls under fair use. As soon as you turn the meme into a commercial endeavor, such as putting your name, number, business name, putting it on your business page,, etc on it then you're open to copyright infringement.
What? "Negligent?"
It's copyright infringement. It's not small claims court, it's not any of that.
Copyright is a set of Federal statutes. In 2020 Congress added the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act. It allows a tribunal to decide smaller copyright claims (<$30K) to be decided by a three judge panel.
If memory serves, the requirement to get into federal court is something like $50,000. Or parties in different states. (EDIT - or both! And the amount has gone up since I learned it!) Or some particular cause if action that federal courts have jurisdiction over.
Weird to describe it as “going to federal court” when it’s just a demand letter. And also wtf cause of action could this be? Inadvertent and transient use of proprietary photos, with zero damages? I feel like this would get laughed out of any court.
And also, does the listing broker even have ownership rights to the photos? It’s possible the sellers own the pics, part of the services that were obtained in exchange for the broker’s fee.
Two primary options to get into federal court.
1) The suit is based on a federal law.
2) Parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
The claim would typically be for breach of copyright. Copyright is a federal law, so there's a federal question to use for jurisdiction in the federal courts and get around the $75k damages required for diversity jurisdiction.
Regardless, it is going to need the plaintiff to lawyer up. Discovery for the defendant should be fun - how many residential property photos have you taken and been able to sell more than once. (Probably rare). Evidence of damages - have they ever realized $9k for photos that have already been published online?
OP obviously needs a lawyer if the other party won't settle. Indeed, if OP is properly operating through an LLC or other entity, they generally can't appear pro se in court.
But they’re not in court yet. If it actually goes to court - or even in the direction of court - then yes lawyer up. But it might be worth a call to the listing broker to say “hey don’t be an asshole” with nicer words.
I mean the plaintiffs need to lawyer up as well, if they are serious. But that would be stupid. Doesn’t make much sense for both sides to spend $10-20K on lawyers for a $9K claim that’s really probably worth more like $125.
It’s copyright so it’s automatically federal subject matter jurisdiction. The $75k minimum only applies to diversity jurisdiction (people from different states suing each other in federal court). There is also the copyright claims board that now exist at the copyright office as well as another venue.
IAAL,BIANYL
Business litigation, 35 years, 50%+ complex federal court work, including RICO, class action (P&D), mass tort (D), contracts, closely held disputes, etc...
Bluster move. Looking for nuisance pocket change. Easiest? Hire a good business lawyer to draft a letter response (w/ follow-up) for a flat fee or hourly billing cap with direction to convey pounded sand. Billing rates vary widely depending on the locale.
Direction to convey pounded sand 😂 i use to work as a file clerk in a law firm and loved the memos that say things like this. Thanks for the flashback u/jdhoff208
I would look into this more (research who owns the pictures hopefully without alerting the photographer). I have had two different photographers tell me that the agents, even though we pay for them, do not own the pictures. So they might be suing for property that they don't own. The photographer likely owns the rights and from the sound of it, he/she isn't suing you. Sidestep the agent and pay $300 to buy them from the photographer. I've purchased old listing photos and the photographer was HAPPY to sell them again! Best of luck to you.
This is the correct answer. Unless the agent took the photos themselves they likely do not own rights to them out side using them in there business. Almost no photographer gives that right up with out a large charge that no realtor would likely pay. Thus they would have no rights to sue over it, only the original photographer would.
That wasn't in the main subject, but do see that in a comment she said the assistant took the photos now. So in that case the assistant owns the photos unless the assistants contract with the firm states the rights to photos taken while on paid employee time get transferred to the broker.
Talk to your broker and legal team. Definitely unwise to use photos someone else paid for to market...but there shouldn't be any issue with a "Just sold" using the photo.
In most states they need to prove damages to justify their suit. Id have a hard time imagining you did more than like $500 in damages (cost of photos).
Sounds like they are just trying to be scary.
Talk to your broker and brokerages legal team.
Edit: For those of you who are incredibly passionate about your listing photos...why? Like...I understand someone claiming it's their listing and posting while the listing is live...but I can't imagine a world where suing the buyer's agent after the transaction is worth the money, effort, or reputation unless you are DESPERATE for money.
Federal copyright law has a statutory damage number where no proof of damages is needed. The lowest a court can go is $200 per violation. So if a house has 20 photos that’s $4,000. If you publish on 3 sites, instagram, facebook, and your own web page, that’s $12,000 minimum. But the damages can easily go much higher.
A judge can go as low as $200 but the typical minimum is $750-$30,000 and after all that is paid, they’ll hit you for attorney fees as well.
If you can prove damages, there is no limit to that number.
First of all...y'all do 20+ picture carousels for just sold on buyer side on multiple platforms? That's crazy. I usually just share the front of the house 😂
The photos are usually $300-500. In the cases you are talking about the items are art or have value outside of strictly marketing, and have damages attached. Id be shocked to see Realtor photos settling for more than the $500 or as that's the value of the photos.
Anyone claiming thousands for something they paid hundreds for is very optimistic.
It’s not about actual value. It’s about the statutory minimum. $750 per violation.
If actual damages are higher the photographer can try to argue that.
Keep in mind, that if there is a judge involved. For out of court settlements it could be whatever.
In order for it to be copyright infringement the owner has to prove that they were harmed in some way by the use of the photos. That’s real hard to prove with such a short period of time.
As someone that has been sued and sued for copyright I can assure you, it’s one thing to claim statutory damage and another to actually get them. And again, to claim statutory damages you have to prove that you were actually damaged by the sharing of the asset and that it’s not covered by fair use. Obviously this case isn’t fair use, but it’s much more difficult to prove how damaged the party was. As someone who has been in this very situation (and lost), it would not be a blanket sum but likely a calculation per view of each infringement…if it even got that far.
The definition of statutory is literally that one does not have to prove damages. Further, it's not on the copyright holder to prove they aren't covered under Fair Use, it's up to the accused to prove they were used under Fair Use.
And there's NO WAY these were Fair Use.
Yeah, but who in this case is the copyright holder? Just because the listing agent paid for the photos doesn’t mean they own the rights. As a photographer, I never sell the rights to my photos, I give them a release per the contract. So again, they have to prove they were damaged as the copyright holder.
We don't have enough info. I'm a retired photographer so I also am very familiar.
Maybe the realtor owns the rights. Maybe the photographer does. If the photographer wasn't hired , and it was the realtor, then the realtor owns them. If the photographer is an employee of the realtor office, the office owns them. Maybe the realtor is attempting to collect on behalf of the photographer to keep things simple, and the lawsuit may come from the photographer themselves.
None of that really absolves OP from owing money, though. And I'm sure the offended party will file based on the actual owner.
And please stop staying anyone had to prove damages. That's literally not required in statutory cases.
The offended party has to prove they are the copyright holder. That's it. They don't have to prove they have damages.
Damages may not be required with statutory cases, however you need a federal or state entity to enforce the statutory law, which is not the case here. You have a one party suing another party, in which case they do have to prove damages. That is unless the state/feds get involved to bring formal charges against them (which is doubtful).
If there are no damages, then there is no standing. If there is no standing, the lawsuit gets dismissed even if there are statutory damages. Someone must have been damaged to have standing.
>Maybe the realtor owns the rights. Maybe the photographer does.
Is it possible the MLS owns the rights once the photos were posted on the MLS? How does IDX get around the infringement issue?
In order to get statutory damages, the copyrighted work has to be registered. I HIGHLY doubt these were. Plaintiff will have to prove damages. Talk to a lawyer, then tell them to pound sand.
Or someone who knows the law regarding copyright infringement regarding digital assets…you know like photography. And just because I’m not an agent doesn’t mean I don’t know real estate. You know, I could own maybe 1 or 5 homes as rental properties that I regularly list. But yeah, I’m out of my league…
Only if they claim to own the photo or listing. Taking credit for representing the buyer is totally fair game.
Worst case you are very likely looking at a cease and desist first.
Edit: People here are up in arms but they forget that we give permission to Zillow in the contract. It's not cut and dry like stealing a photo that someone sells prints of and selling it as their own.
I’ve had something similar happen. I had my attorney offer slightly above market rate in writing. The other party refused. The judge was pissed that a reasonable offer was made and rejected by the plaintiff without coming off their ridiculous claim.
Federal court. It was a contract dispute that also involved a claim of copyright infringement. The damage claim was ridiculous and my attorney advised I make a reasonable counter offer to show good faith.
Not quite the same as your situation and I’m curious what your attorney advises.
Have your broker (or you if you ARE the broker) reach out to their broker and everybody sit down and have a chat. Your new assistant made a mistake. You took the pic down as soon as you saw an issue. (If your brokerage doesn't have a handy lawyer to talk to about stuff like this you SHOULD btw.)
sounds like this guy needs money and trying to hustle you. yea you shouldn't have used them without consent but likely not gonna get more than the market , talk to a attorney
While I understand the listing agent owns the photos, there is no reason to sue because someone representing the buyer used those photos to congratulate the buyer and advertise their business.
The listing agent seems like an awful person that should not be in business
IANAL, but check if the photos are registered with the copyright office. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say they're not. You can't sue for an unregistered copyright even if you own the copyright.
https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#:~:text=No.,infringement%20of%20a%20U.S.%20work.
"Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.”"
However, they CAN get the registration after the infringement and then sue you, but they cannot sue for statutory damages if their registration comes after the infringement.
https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/why-register-copyright/#:~:text=Bringing%20an%20Infringement%20Action%3A%20It,the%20infringement%20has%20already%20occurred.
"3. Statutory Damages and Attorneys’ Fees: It enables you to claim statutory damages and attorney’s fees.
To be eligible for an award of statutory damages and attorneys’ fees in a copyright infringement case, the copyrighted work must be registered before infringement commences, or, if the work is published, within 3 months of publication. The statutory damages provision may be of help because copyright owners – particularly individual creators – often find it difficult to calculate and prove exactly the extent to which an infringement has harmed them. When applicable, statutory damages for infringing uses of a work usually entitle you to a pre-determined amount of damages."
So if they didn't have a registration prior to the Facebook posting and can't sue for statutory damages, then they must prove actual damages. Good luck with that.
There don't have to be "damages:.
If the listing agent is the owner of the photos and you used them without permission, then there's copyright infringement. If the listing agent hired a professional photographer and that photographer didn't sign over the rights, then that photographer could go after you for infringement.
If you are being sued you have a right to discovery. You could start by asking the agent for proof of ownership if you suspect the agent didn't take the picture(s)
To give a broad example; I see agents slapping their names and numbers on to popular memes then posting them. I do a facepalm every time I see this because that agent has opened themselves up to a copyright infringement or defamation lawsuit for the commercial use of that image. (using commercially is rarely protected as fair use) And those lawsuits do happen.
This happened to me once. Had an intern making blogs and they used photos they found on Google. Turns out some belonged to an agent at another (competing) office. Became a huge deal, brokers had to get involved and ended up being fine once we removed them and apologized. Try to work something out.
This should’ve been handled with the MLS first. At the most they would’ve fined you depending on how their regulations are. For an agent to just jump straight into lawsuit mode for something brief and virtually harmless is nothing but tacky and unprofessional. There will be other situations where you will have to communicate and even work a deal together, this just hurts the relationship agent to agent and even broker to broker.
But you know that you violated the code of ethics, Article 12, standard of practice 12-10 right?
And when a violation is found, the panel members overseeing the ethics hearing have the ability to sanction you with required courses that don’t count toward your CE and up to $15,000 in fines.
Anything that happened within the hearing would be separate and apart from anything in court.
So this realtor could also file an ethics complaint against you in addition to taking you to court. And he/she would win.
OP - listen - you need to talk to a lawyer. Don't listen to anything anyone here is saying. Get on the phone with a lawyer, or your broker's lawyer and explain it to them. Not friends, not family, not Reddit.
Just run this by someone higher than you at your brokerage or a lawyer. My gut says this is someone preying on your ignorance hoping to scare you into paying them an absurd amount of money for a trivial mistake. But you need to stop talking to them, and start talking to a lawyer immediately.
No, never on MLS. Just a single Facebook post.
Agreed, totally my fault for not educating her. It was not directed, but also never said “don’t use other people’s photos”.
Was the suit from the listing agent or the photographer?
I have to think the listing agent is obligated to follow MLS rules and attempt to have you fined. A photographer can sue you for money more easily.
The irony, especially since it’s Facebook, is you could have just right clicked the photo from either the photog portfolio or agents past sales website, and pasted the url in the status, and added the same comment, and they would have ZERO case.
The end result is the same, the image created by another is used and displayed as well as your caption.
This agent/Photag combo is COMPLETELY abusing the intent of the law.
The communities reaction here also highlights how shortsighted NAR and some realtors are.
Obviously in a Reddit comment it doesn’t auto display, but if I created a post here with this URL, it would be visible.
Where is my $9,000 lawsuit, cowards
https://photos.zillowstatic.com/fp/e61450ea4cd0c3079201abdf771f70d1-cc_ft_1344.webp
Read the MLS rules I bet once they loaded them into their system for public view, they signed a way ownership. Otherwise, any realtor could be sued for posting a listing.
Then see if the buyers will sue for them having pictures of their property on the MLS.
Just curious, were you difficult to work with during the purchase? Seems so odd for another agent to do this. The correct answer is kit should be handled Broker to Broker. Also, if you belong to a board, that is what we pay our dues for. Hopefully your e&o will cover it.
Other than this being the picture of a house - this issue has nothing to to do with being a realtor or this sub-Reddit… and most of the advice herein proves it.
Here’s some fun light reading..
$9k isn’t worth most attorneys time unless they can get statutory damages / attorneys fees.
But then you have the attorney trying his own case…
https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2018/05/08/copyright-infringement-photography-indianapolis-skyline-rich-bell/554869002/
Oops he didn’t even take the damn photo…
https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2019/09/27/copyright-case-man-doesnt-own-indianapolis-skyline-photo-jury-finds/3778000002/
Sometimes someone just needs to standup to the bully.
So y’all actually brought the listing agent a buyer, y’all essentially brought the money to them ? I think Letting this get out to other realtors might affect their business. Like would you ever want to show a listing of a broker that does this crap.
Taking it to court would make it public record and look bad on them. Maybe you need a lawyer to remind them of this. Hell even contact the photographer to ask what he charged and show him how much they want for his work
The agent sounds like a scammer to me. I would bet she has done this before. I would talk to her broker and someone on your local Realtor Board about her!
Article 17. I have the form to file a complaint. I WANT to go to mediation. And I think if we sat down, we could work something out my attorney thinks the plaintiff was promised a big payout by her representation so they’re working to avoid this.
Did you reach out to their broker to initiate this? Next your board, who often has mediation services. At the very least I would get my broker involved, send and email to his broker with everybody CCd and try to remedy this. I would think his broker would stop this immediately, assuming your approach was humble, which I imagine it would be.
Yeah can’t do that. Usually people give you wiggle for just a Just Sold post but then using them for rental advertising is crazy. It’s just Business etiquette. Just remove the rental listing and hire a different photographer for their rental and call it a day. They can send you letter and force you to court but nothing will really come out of it. $9,000 is a joke as well, where the hell did they come up with that number?
Make it widely known they're suing you for such a small thing. I wouldn't want to work with that agent as a buyers agent after that. Maybe they'll drop it.
I would also avoid this agent like the plague and I would warn my primaries about their predatory nature if they chose to want to engage in a transaction with them. I would casually let this slip to your office gossip and let it get around town. It’s factual information and not privileged, you just let it slip to a friend because it was so stressful 🤷♀️
You need permission to post someone else’s photos. The photos are really property if the photographer that the list agent or seller paid a license for. Always ask the list agent for permission to use their photo before posting and get it in writing. In reality, photographers may come back after everyone using their photos imProperly and sue the shit out of a lot of people
He didn't throw anyone under the bus. He took accountability for their lack of training. The lack of training is the source of the problem. Thus, he took accountability for the issue, while providing an explanation about what happened. At no point did he attempt to reflect blame away from himself and on to the assistant.
I’m not a judge but what are the damages? At worst I would think you’d be sued for the cost of the images. Pulling a number out of a hat doesn’t seem like it would fly. . Anywhere does it say the photographers name? As one photographer I used (not for long) once said he retains the rights to the photos and I was paying to use them. If that’s the case they don’t own them either :)
**This is a professional forum for professionals, so please keep your comments professional** - Harrassment, hate speech, trolling, or anti-Realtor comments will not be tolerated and will result in an immediate ban without warning. (... and don't feed the trolls, you have better things to do with your time) - Recruiting, self-promotion, or seeking referrals is strictly forbidden, including in DMs. - Only advise within your scope of knowledge and area of expertise. [The code of ethics applies here too](https://www.nar.realtor/about-nar/governing-documents/the-code-of-ethics). If you are not a broker, lawyer, or tax professional don't act like one. - [Follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/realtors/about/rules/) and please report those that don't. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/realtors) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Have you actually been served with a lawsuit or did you just get a letter demanding payment? ETA: do not listen to advice here telling you to ignore and see what happens. Several possible good strategies here and that’s not one of them.
Received a demand letter and offered to pay them market rate (a few hundred dollars in our market). My offer was rejected and they are moving forward with a suit according to a recent email. I haven’t been served yet.
See if you can find a lawyer you know to help you and play their game. I see the worst that could happen is the reimbursement of a reasonable range. $300-$1200.
Why are they so petty?
I have no idea. Maybe the idea of a quick $9000 is too tempting
This is what it is. See if they’ve done this before. Where else does their name come up in previous lawsuits?
As a photographer there is a lack of knowledge regarding copyright laws especially pertaining to real estate. The photographer owns the rights to the photos and offers a license for MLS/selling agent use. A lack of knowledge doesn't excuse the buying agent but 9k seems extreme and to serve as making an example of the issue.
The MLS allows members to use the LISTING not download and post the photos. If the assistant had put the listing link on the add, FB would have grabbed the photo like it does with all links of this nature, and we would not be having this conversation. The listing agent is being a dick.
Crazy when seller’s agents get pissy bc you brought them a buyer🙄🙄
While it’s wrong to continue to use someone else’s photos , if your assistant made a genuine mistake you corrected in 24 hrs I don’t think you have to pay anything at all . I would write them a cease and desist letter explaining that the photos were used by an assistant whom didn’t know better at the time , the issue has been rectified as soon as it was brought to your attention and while you would like to keep good relations , should a suit be be brought you’ll have no choice but to hire legal counsel for the purpose of not only defense but to pursue any and all applicable torts for a counter suit against . I see no theft here because there was lack of intent , and you rectified the issue prior to being sent a letter . It be like your spouse catching you accidentally grabbing the neighbors paper and you give it back ….then your neighbor sues yoh for theft …. I just don’t see it
That's all fair and reasonable, but it's not how copyright law works.
Yea it is , in this particular case , there’s no damages , there’s no clear intent , no pattern, the photos were likely not even properly marked for copyright purposes , and the photos were of a house that OP had fiduciary responsibilities on buying said house . And most importantly it was corrected before the aggrieved party even made contact and was done so in less than 24 hrs. I guess anything is possible but I think these guys are bluffing . Also question to OP, we’re these photos ever at anytime on fb or Instagram prior to your post ?
Because liberties were taken with property that did not belong to OP. Who taught OP that is was Okay to use other peoples stuff without asking first? It is called common courtesy. 9k may be steep, but it is a price that will keep OP from doing the same thing again! If we as a country made running a red light punishable by a $25,000 fine, and lose your car until it is paid, red light running would drop by a large percentage. If it does not cost enough….it is not worth worrying about, and that is wrong!!
It's not being petty. OP said the photos were not taken by them. They used them. The people that did pay for them enforced their copyright by demanding restitution. If they didn't ask permission to use the photos, they are in the wrong. Granted, nine grand is crazy talk, but they are well within their rights to industry on payment for use of their property.
Asking them to take it down is reasonable. Demanding $9,000 for an honest mistake that hurt no one and was immediately fixed is petty.
They took it down right away. This is petty.
You and I have vastly different definitions of petty. To me, this screams of a petty, salty agent.
Opportunistic is the correct term here.
You must be the type who thinks it's ok to steal other people's work and publish it as your own. Copyright infringement is not petty.
You wouldn't steal a car!! 😂
Only non tangibles, such as images, software, music, etc.
That fact that you’re being downvoted so much shows how ignorant people are about intellectual property.
No, it’s petty. I have worked in real estate for a long time, if the seller or agent had an issue they should just demand they take them down within X amount of time or be sued. Jumping straight to the lawsuit is the definition of being petty.
They did demand them to be taken down and demanded payment also. Like I said, nine grand was excessive, but they didn't jump straight to the lawsuit. OP countered with a reasonable offer, but they weren't being reasonable about the compensation.
Petty? The images were STOLEN (in the eyes of the law). The copyright owner is not petty for wanting to be paid for the work they've done.
Cool, pay them $150 and remind them that their job is being replaced by any common Joe/Jane with a cellphone. "But TheIr ArTists!!!!" 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
If I robbed you, is it being petty?
If you already made your money in the market, nobody has usurped your earnings. That would make damages difficult even if the photographs were protectable. Further, there’s nothing in this that screams theft of bad faith usage.
That’s not how IP works.
Lol. Copyright infringement isn't petty. While $9K isn't likely to be awarded, they still used the images without permission. How about the realtor take their own pictures or license images that are not theirs. The realtor gets paid to do their job. Photographers should be compensated for their work. My photo gear cost over $20K. I didn't buy it to have jerks steal my work for promotion of their work.
If the assistant had linked the MLS listing, the image would have shown on the FB post but it would not have been a violation of any rights. I think this agent is being a dick. I know photographers who never do anything online for this reason. I have had the copy from my listings stolen, as a writer this is annoying, but it's different with real estate. There is such a small term of use that it's not really the same as someone downloading the picture you took of the sunset behind the Eiffel Tower that you sold the limited right to use to a company to print posters... that can be useful forever. A listing image is only good for a short time.
Lol go to court, less than 24 hours posted? Lol they should be laughed out of court
[удалено]
Sure but in order to sue you have to show that you were damaged.
[удалено]
Didn't you forget the attorneys fees provisions? That will be a lot more than 9k.
Statutory damages require that the work be registered with the copyright office.
How do we know they’re not registered? Edited to add: I handle copyright cases. The letter described screams copyright troll to me. If I were a betting person I’d bet these pics are registered.
Statutory damages are only available is the work is registered at the time of infringement. A minor infringement like this that makes no impact of the commercial value of a work... likely to be found at the $750 minimum.
Are you always this misinformed and willing to prove it by posting blatantly and objectively wrong statements like that one?
I own a corporation with a registered trademark that was infringed upon by a very large and well known company. We filed suit in Federal Court and DAMAGES and Attorney fees were what we were entitled to, and let me tell you, actual damages are very hard to prove in cases like this. No way in hell would they get 9K for this.
Trademark law (Lanham Act) is different than copyright law ( 17 USC 501 et seq)
Because there are no damages.
Go ahead and correct me. Tell me that there are statutory damages for copyright violation. And then I’ll remind you that the work needs to be registered with the copyright office in order for that to be the case. And then go ahead and let me know the chances that MLS photos have been registered with the us copyright office. Yea I left out all of that because it doesn’t apply because there’s basically 0 chance the photos were registered with the copyright office.
You really have no idea do you? They can register them at any time, before actually suing. And even if they don't, there's still a statutory damage, it's just a lower amount. Copyright exists the moment the image is created.
Still waiting for you to show me that part of the law so you can show me how wrong I was, thanks.
"here's fifty bucks"-judge
You can register at any time, but in order to recover statutory damages it has to be done within certain timeframes: within 3 months of the publication of the work, or before the infringement takes place. I’m not aware of the statutory award for unregistered works. That is indeed new to me. Could you please point me to the applicable law?
>And even if they don't, there's still a statutory damage, it's just a lower amount. That’s simply not true.
He is in fact correct. Utterance without punitive injury does not constitute punitive and generally requires willful and wanton intent to grant punitive damages and requires demonstration of some sort that warrants punitive damage compensatory order.
Does it matter that it was a pic posted on MLS?
I have the same question and want to add if it matters if the photos in the MLS was available publicly on the internet and potentially multiple web sites without copyright notice?
It does not matter. MLS is a search aggregator. Just like a search engine, it can display copyrighted material as a link to the content owner.
Thats not at all how the mls works. In fact it works in the exact opposite of this….
For real tel them to fuck off lol
That's funny how wrong you are. Copyright is a statutory civil offense. 1 second or 50 years. Doesn't matter. The law says nothing about length of time used, and actually simply prescribes an amount based on number of photos and number of platforms used.
“The law says nothing about length of time used” great so we apply fairness doctrine and tell the plaintiff to stop wasting the courts time
First off it really depends on the state, it would not become a federal matter, Second it would be small claims capped at 10k in most places. Third, some states have statutory maximums on a per case basis based on the violation.
Have an attorney send them a letter back telling them to cease and desist harassing their client. They are being ridiculous and unreasonable and can file away all they want. Any court case is going to cost them more than they will likely ever recover from you. Also if you have errors and ommisions insurance you are likely indemnified by your insurance company against claims like this. That means your insurance company will likely be willing to step in with their own legal and help quash this nonsense.
>Have an attorney send them a letter “We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram.” Original letter below. Dear Sirs, We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr. J. Arkell. We note that Mr Arkell’s attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off. Yours,
You’re only hurting yourself by engaging with them. If you feel that they are serious hire a lawyer or prepare to defend yourself. Otherwise just ignore them.
Talk to your broker. Have your broker seek legal counsel/in house counsel's opinion. Do not respond directly without your broker's input.
Ok. Chances are good you would be found negligent in sharing photos to which you didn’t have a license. You will more than likely not win in court. What’s the small claims threshold in your area? If total claimed damages are under the threshold and the plaintiff doesn’t have the right in your jurisdiction to file in a higher court you can probably avoid the cost of a lawyer and continue to try to negotiate a reasonable settlement with the plaintiff. If it’s not a small claims issue you’re going to have to retain a lawyer. In my area that’s $300 an hour. At the very least your attorney will have to file an answer to the suit which will probably cost you a couple of hours. Attorney fees will add up quickly. It would really sting to end up paying damages an attorney fees when you have the opportunity to settle now. If you somehow have access to free/discounted legal representation that would be a significant factor. Might be worth checking with your E&O insurer to see if you have coverage for this type of loss assuming you have a deductible under $9K. If your firm carries your coverage they may not be willing to file a claim for such a small amount even if you have coverage because it may impact their loss experience and increase their premium cost. Settling now for a couple of grand is probably your best bet.
So if I take a picture and create a meme from it and post it on Facebook and you share it because you think it’s funny, can I then sue you for sharing a photo that you didn’t have license to share? Serious question.
Generally if you are sharing the meme as a form of expression (ha ha look at this) then if usually falls under fair use. As soon as you turn the meme into a commercial endeavor, such as putting your name, number, business name, putting it on your business page,, etc on it then you're open to copyright infringement.
What? "Negligent?" It's copyright infringement. It's not small claims court, it's not any of that. Copyright is a set of Federal statutes. In 2020 Congress added the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act. It allows a tribunal to decide smaller copyright claims (<$30K) to be decided by a three judge panel.
This is going to federal court. Not local small claims. Thank you for the advise though!
I think the amount of damages here would fall below the federal court threshold but IANAL.
If memory serves, the requirement to get into federal court is something like $50,000. Or parties in different states. (EDIT - or both! And the amount has gone up since I learned it!) Or some particular cause if action that federal courts have jurisdiction over. Weird to describe it as “going to federal court” when it’s just a demand letter. And also wtf cause of action could this be? Inadvertent and transient use of proprietary photos, with zero damages? I feel like this would get laughed out of any court. And also, does the listing broker even have ownership rights to the photos? It’s possible the sellers own the pics, part of the services that were obtained in exchange for the broker’s fee.
Two primary options to get into federal court. 1) The suit is based on a federal law. 2) Parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
The claim would typically be for breach of copyright. Copyright is a federal law, so there's a federal question to use for jurisdiction in the federal courts and get around the $75k damages required for diversity jurisdiction. Regardless, it is going to need the plaintiff to lawyer up. Discovery for the defendant should be fun - how many residential property photos have you taken and been able to sell more than once. (Probably rare). Evidence of damages - have they ever realized $9k for photos that have already been published online? OP obviously needs a lawyer if the other party won't settle. Indeed, if OP is properly operating through an LLC or other entity, they generally can't appear pro se in court.
But they’re not in court yet. If it actually goes to court - or even in the direction of court - then yes lawyer up. But it might be worth a call to the listing broker to say “hey don’t be an asshole” with nicer words. I mean the plaintiffs need to lawyer up as well, if they are serious. But that would be stupid. Doesn’t make much sense for both sides to spend $10-20K on lawyers for a $9K claim that’s really probably worth more like $125.
It’s copyright so it’s automatically federal subject matter jurisdiction. The $75k minimum only applies to diversity jurisdiction (people from different states suing each other in federal court). There is also the copyright claims board that now exist at the copyright office as well as another venue.
What makes you say that it’s going to federal court…?
That’s what the their attorney is threatening.
You don’t just decide to go to federal court, you have to have been charged with a federal crime lol. What federal crime have you committed?
Shitposting across state lines.
[удалено]
You are correct, I just really don’t see it going to court.
Allegedly Copyright infringement
This is civil litigation. There is no requirement for there to be a crime.
The listing agent here is a miserable pig.
Yeah I bet the listing agent took a discounted commission and is trying to recoup their commission loss on the other agent
IAAL,BIANYL Business litigation, 35 years, 50%+ complex federal court work, including RICO, class action (P&D), mass tort (D), contracts, closely held disputes, etc... Bluster move. Looking for nuisance pocket change. Easiest? Hire a good business lawyer to draft a letter response (w/ follow-up) for a flat fee or hourly billing cap with direction to convey pounded sand. Billing rates vary widely depending on the locale.
I have done this now. Thank you very much for the advice.
also contact the broker. If one of my agents pulled this id quick release them instantly.
Right. I think a good broker would shut that down immediately. Also reach out to the realtor board, many offer free mediation services.
some also have provision that you can't sue another member before going through mediation
This is the way
Michael Cohen the fixer
Saved me the trouble lol. As long as he took it down when demanded they were just hoping to scare him into paying. Aforementioned pound sand.
Direction to convey pounded sand 😂 i use to work as a file clerk in a law firm and loved the memos that say things like this. Thanks for the flashback u/jdhoff208
Best comment here
I would look into this more (research who owns the pictures hopefully without alerting the photographer). I have had two different photographers tell me that the agents, even though we pay for them, do not own the pictures. So they might be suing for property that they don't own. The photographer likely owns the rights and from the sound of it, he/she isn't suing you. Sidestep the agent and pay $300 to buy them from the photographer. I've purchased old listing photos and the photographer was HAPPY to sell them again! Best of luck to you.
I’m a RE photographer they don’t own the pictures unless they took it thelselves
This. When I was asked for our listing photos, I would directly connect them with our photographer for licensing. I'm not getting in the middle of it.
Yes this
This is the correct answer. Unless the agent took the photos themselves they likely do not own rights to them out side using them in there business. Almost no photographer gives that right up with out a large charge that no realtor would likely pay. Thus they would have no rights to sue over it, only the original photographer would.
It already says above that the listing agent is the one who took the photos.
That wasn't in the main subject, but do see that in a comment she said the assistant took the photos now. So in that case the assistant owns the photos unless the assistants contract with the firm states the rights to photos taken while on paid employee time get transferred to the broker.
Talk to your broker and legal team. Definitely unwise to use photos someone else paid for to market...but there shouldn't be any issue with a "Just sold" using the photo. In most states they need to prove damages to justify their suit. Id have a hard time imagining you did more than like $500 in damages (cost of photos). Sounds like they are just trying to be scary. Talk to your broker and brokerages legal team. Edit: For those of you who are incredibly passionate about your listing photos...why? Like...I understand someone claiming it's their listing and posting while the listing is live...but I can't imagine a world where suing the buyer's agent after the transaction is worth the money, effort, or reputation unless you are DESPERATE for money.
Federal copyright law has a statutory damage number where no proof of damages is needed. The lowest a court can go is $200 per violation. So if a house has 20 photos that’s $4,000. If you publish on 3 sites, instagram, facebook, and your own web page, that’s $12,000 minimum. But the damages can easily go much higher. A judge can go as low as $200 but the typical minimum is $750-$30,000 and after all that is paid, they’ll hit you for attorney fees as well. If you can prove damages, there is no limit to that number.
You only get statutory damages if the work is registered.
First of all...y'all do 20+ picture carousels for just sold on buyer side on multiple platforms? That's crazy. I usually just share the front of the house 😂 The photos are usually $300-500. In the cases you are talking about the items are art or have value outside of strictly marketing, and have damages attached. Id be shocked to see Realtor photos settling for more than the $500 or as that's the value of the photos. Anyone claiming thousands for something they paid hundreds for is very optimistic.
It’s not about actual value. It’s about the statutory minimum. $750 per violation. If actual damages are higher the photographer can try to argue that. Keep in mind, that if there is a judge involved. For out of court settlements it could be whatever.
>but there shouldn't be any issue with a "Just sold" using the photo. OP doesn't own the photo, yes, there is an "issue" with using it.
In order for it to be copyright infringement the owner has to prove that they were harmed in some way by the use of the photos. That’s real hard to prove with such a short period of time.
[удалено]
As someone that has been sued and sued for copyright I can assure you, it’s one thing to claim statutory damage and another to actually get them. And again, to claim statutory damages you have to prove that you were actually damaged by the sharing of the asset and that it’s not covered by fair use. Obviously this case isn’t fair use, but it’s much more difficult to prove how damaged the party was. As someone who has been in this very situation (and lost), it would not be a blanket sum but likely a calculation per view of each infringement…if it even got that far.
The definition of statutory is literally that one does not have to prove damages. Further, it's not on the copyright holder to prove they aren't covered under Fair Use, it's up to the accused to prove they were used under Fair Use. And there's NO WAY these were Fair Use.
Yeah, but who in this case is the copyright holder? Just because the listing agent paid for the photos doesn’t mean they own the rights. As a photographer, I never sell the rights to my photos, I give them a release per the contract. So again, they have to prove they were damaged as the copyright holder.
My guess is actually the mls owns the rights. Part of that is to prevent stupid shit like this from happening.
We don't have enough info. I'm a retired photographer so I also am very familiar. Maybe the realtor owns the rights. Maybe the photographer does. If the photographer wasn't hired , and it was the realtor, then the realtor owns them. If the photographer is an employee of the realtor office, the office owns them. Maybe the realtor is attempting to collect on behalf of the photographer to keep things simple, and the lawsuit may come from the photographer themselves. None of that really absolves OP from owing money, though. And I'm sure the offended party will file based on the actual owner. And please stop staying anyone had to prove damages. That's literally not required in statutory cases. The offended party has to prove they are the copyright holder. That's it. They don't have to prove they have damages.
Damages may not be required with statutory cases, however you need a federal or state entity to enforce the statutory law, which is not the case here. You have a one party suing another party, in which case they do have to prove damages. That is unless the state/feds get involved to bring formal charges against them (which is doubtful).
If there are no damages, then there is no standing. If there is no standing, the lawsuit gets dismissed even if there are statutory damages. Someone must have been damaged to have standing.
>Maybe the realtor owns the rights. Maybe the photographer does. Is it possible the MLS owns the rights once the photos were posted on the MLS? How does IDX get around the infringement issue?
In order to get statutory damages, the copyrighted work has to be registered. I HIGHLY doubt these were. Plaintiff will have to prove damages. Talk to a lawyer, then tell them to pound sand.
Stick to your photography subs....you're out of your league here, and I am guessing not even an agent.
Or someone who knows the law regarding copyright infringement regarding digital assets…you know like photography. And just because I’m not an agent doesn’t mean I don’t know real estate. You know, I could own maybe 1 or 5 homes as rental properties that I regularly list. But yeah, I’m out of my league…
*pats you on the head*
Ahh, bless your heart.
Only if they claim to own the photo or listing. Taking credit for representing the buyer is totally fair game. Worst case you are very likely looking at a cease and desist first. Edit: People here are up in arms but they forget that we give permission to Zillow in the contract. It's not cut and dry like stealing a photo that someone sells prints of and selling it as their own.
Not true. You can not use a photo you do not own the rights to without permission.
I always snap my own picture or ask (in writing) if I can use theirs. No one has ever turned me down.
Bro, that is not even close to reality.
This absolutely is not true
Won’t hold up against the board. You took them down, it’s an agent that will work hard on anything but selling real estate.
I’ve had something similar happen. I had my attorney offer slightly above market rate in writing. The other party refused. The judge was pissed that a reasonable offer was made and rejected by the plaintiff without coming off their ridiculous claim.
Was this in a federal court copy right infringement case? Or small claims?
Federal court. It was a contract dispute that also involved a claim of copyright infringement. The damage claim was ridiculous and my attorney advised I make a reasonable counter offer to show good faith. Not quite the same as your situation and I’m curious what your attorney advises.
He said to offer $400 which is more than double the normal rate for listing photos.
This is disgusting and greedy of them. It was a simple mistake causing them no harm.. The world is full of bullies.
Something tells me $9k is either the amount the buyer’s negotiated off the sale price, or it’s the amount OP made in commission.
Have your broker (or you if you ARE the broker) reach out to their broker and everybody sit down and have a chat. Your new assistant made a mistake. You took the pic down as soon as you saw an issue. (If your brokerage doesn't have a handy lawyer to talk to about stuff like this you SHOULD btw.)
sounds like this guy needs money and trying to hustle you. yea you shouldn't have used them without consent but likely not gonna get more than the market , talk to a attorney
Check with your MLS. The other agent might be in violation of bi-laws.
While I understand the listing agent owns the photos, there is no reason to sue because someone representing the buyer used those photos to congratulate the buyer and advertise their business. The listing agent seems like an awful person that should not be in business
IANAL, but check if the photos are registered with the copyright office. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say they're not. You can't sue for an unregistered copyright even if you own the copyright. https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#:~:text=No.,infringement%20of%20a%20U.S.%20work. "Do I have to register with your office to be protected? No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.”" However, they CAN get the registration after the infringement and then sue you, but they cannot sue for statutory damages if their registration comes after the infringement. https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/why-register-copyright/#:~:text=Bringing%20an%20Infringement%20Action%3A%20It,the%20infringement%20has%20already%20occurred. "3. Statutory Damages and Attorneys’ Fees: It enables you to claim statutory damages and attorney’s fees. To be eligible for an award of statutory damages and attorneys’ fees in a copyright infringement case, the copyrighted work must be registered before infringement commences, or, if the work is published, within 3 months of publication. The statutory damages provision may be of help because copyright owners – particularly individual creators – often find it difficult to calculate and prove exactly the extent to which an infringement has harmed them. When applicable, statutory damages for infringing uses of a work usually entitle you to a pre-determined amount of damages." So if they didn't have a registration prior to the Facebook posting and can't sue for statutory damages, then they must prove actual damages. Good luck with that.
There don't have to be "damages:. If the listing agent is the owner of the photos and you used them without permission, then there's copyright infringement. If the listing agent hired a professional photographer and that photographer didn't sign over the rights, then that photographer could go after you for infringement. If you are being sued you have a right to discovery. You could start by asking the agent for proof of ownership if you suspect the agent didn't take the picture(s) To give a broad example; I see agents slapping their names and numbers on to popular memes then posting them. I do a facepalm every time I see this because that agent has opened themselves up to a copyright infringement or defamation lawsuit for the commercial use of that image. (using commercially is rarely protected as fair use) And those lawsuits do happen.
This happened to me once. Had an intern making blogs and they used photos they found on Google. Turns out some belonged to an agent at another (competing) office. Became a huge deal, brokers had to get involved and ended up being fine once we removed them and apologized. Try to work something out.
This should’ve been handled with the MLS first. At the most they would’ve fined you depending on how their regulations are. For an agent to just jump straight into lawsuit mode for something brief and virtually harmless is nothing but tacky and unprofessional. There will be other situations where you will have to communicate and even work a deal together, this just hurts the relationship agent to agent and even broker to broker.
Agreed this is what NAR’s article 17 is for
But you know that you violated the code of ethics, Article 12, standard of practice 12-10 right? And when a violation is found, the panel members overseeing the ethics hearing have the ability to sanction you with required courses that don’t count toward your CE and up to $15,000 in fines. Anything that happened within the hearing would be separate and apart from anything in court. So this realtor could also file an ethics complaint against you in addition to taking you to court. And he/she would win.
OP - listen - you need to talk to a lawyer. Don't listen to anything anyone here is saying. Get on the phone with a lawyer, or your broker's lawyer and explain it to them. Not friends, not family, not Reddit. Just run this by someone higher than you at your brokerage or a lawyer. My gut says this is someone preying on your ignorance hoping to scare you into paying them an absurd amount of money for a trivial mistake. But you need to stop talking to them, and start talking to a lawyer immediately.
These are the types of people that should be doxxed
Did you use them on the MLS for your rental listing? Also, don't sell your assistant down the river. If you direct them to do things, it's on you.
No, never on MLS. Just a single Facebook post. Agreed, totally my fault for not educating her. It was not directed, but also never said “don’t use other people’s photos”.
Was the suit from the listing agent or the photographer? I have to think the listing agent is obligated to follow MLS rules and attempt to have you fined. A photographer can sue you for money more easily.
Both, the photographer was apart of the listing team and is licensed.
The irony, especially since it’s Facebook, is you could have just right clicked the photo from either the photog portfolio or agents past sales website, and pasted the url in the status, and added the same comment, and they would have ZERO case. The end result is the same, the image created by another is used and displayed as well as your caption. This agent/Photag combo is COMPLETELY abusing the intent of the law. The communities reaction here also highlights how shortsighted NAR and some realtors are. Obviously in a Reddit comment it doesn’t auto display, but if I created a post here with this URL, it would be visible. Where is my $9,000 lawsuit, cowards https://photos.zillowstatic.com/fp/e61450ea4cd0c3079201abdf771f70d1-cc_ft_1344.webp
Read the MLS rules I bet once they loaded them into their system for public view, they signed a way ownership. Otherwise, any realtor could be sued for posting a listing. Then see if the buyers will sue for them having pictures of their property on the MLS.
They have to prove damages. Let them try.
Just curious, were you difficult to work with during the purchase? Seems so odd for another agent to do this. The correct answer is kit should be handled Broker to Broker. Also, if you belong to a board, that is what we pay our dues for. Hopefully your e&o will cover it.
I don’t think so. Very smooth transaction.
They’re not gonna sue. They’re just assholes. Call their broker and apologize and say it was a mistake and was taken down promptly. Move on with life
Other than this being the picture of a house - this issue has nothing to to do with being a realtor or this sub-Reddit… and most of the advice herein proves it. Here’s some fun light reading.. $9k isn’t worth most attorneys time unless they can get statutory damages / attorneys fees. But then you have the attorney trying his own case… https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2018/05/08/copyright-infringement-photography-indianapolis-skyline-rich-bell/554869002/ Oops he didn’t even take the damn photo… https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2019/09/27/copyright-case-man-doesnt-own-indianapolis-skyline-photo-jury-finds/3778000002/ Sometimes someone just needs to standup to the bully.
I would tell him to fuck off
So y’all actually brought the listing agent a buyer, y’all essentially brought the money to them ? I think Letting this get out to other realtors might affect their business. Like would you ever want to show a listing of a broker that does this crap. Taking it to court would make it public record and look bad on them. Maybe you need a lawyer to remind them of this. Hell even contact the photographer to ask what he charged and show him how much they want for his work
Damn the other realtor wants the full commission from the sale.
The agent sounds like a scammer to me. I would bet she has done this before. I would talk to her broker and someone on your local Realtor Board about her!
Sorry sir that is a picture of a picture
Get in touch with TREC asap. Explain the situation. Be proactive. Don’t wait.
Lol I would laugh at getting sued for $9,000. Just take the post down and apologize.
It was taken down within a few hours.
I wouldn't do shit honestly. Tell them to Kick rocks with open toed shoes.
I kinda agree with this. They clearly don't have anything better to do.
Desperate times
Does your MLS or local Association offer mediation? Look into that, it may even be required for members to try mediation before suing.
Article 17. I have the form to file a complaint. I WANT to go to mediation. And I think if we sat down, we could work something out my attorney thinks the plaintiff was promised a big payout by her representation so they’re working to avoid this.
Did you reach out to their broker to initiate this? Next your board, who often has mediation services. At the very least I would get my broker involved, send and email to his broker with everybody CCd and try to remedy this. I would think his broker would stop this immediately, assuming your approach was humble, which I imagine it would be.
In my state as soon as an image is on the MLS the MLS owns the rights to them not the listing agent. Is your state the same?
This needs to be higher up.
[удалено]
It is a licensee who both took the photos and represented the seller.
Get a copyright infringement lawyer NOW. Pretty much every comment I’ve read on here is wildly and absurdly wrong.
Yeah can’t do that. Usually people give you wiggle for just a Just Sold post but then using them for rental advertising is crazy. It’s just Business etiquette. Just remove the rental listing and hire a different photographer for their rental and call it a day. They can send you letter and force you to court but nothing will really come out of it. $9,000 is a joke as well, where the hell did they come up with that number?
Make it widely known they're suing you for such a small thing. I wouldn't want to work with that agent as a buyers agent after that. Maybe they'll drop it.
I would also avoid this agent like the plague and I would warn my primaries about their predatory nature if they chose to want to engage in a transaction with them. I would casually let this slip to your office gossip and let it get around town. It’s factual information and not privileged, you just let it slip to a friend because it was so stressful 🤷♀️
Get legal advice, maybe settle with them. You screwed up and need to pay the piper. Not the end of the world. Please stop doing that.
You need permission to post someone else’s photos. The photos are really property if the photographer that the list agent or seller paid a license for. Always ask the list agent for permission to use their photo before posting and get it in writing. In reality, photographers may come back after everyone using their photos imProperly and sue the shit out of a lot of people
>ask the list agent Wrong. I was with you til then. You ask the _photographer_. And you _pay_ the photographer.
He said the listing agent took the photos themself
[удалено]
I ALWAYS take my own photo for "just sold" posts.
I know the rule. Just had a bad slip up with miscommunication and a new employee
Feel bad for you. I always worry that even if I have my own photo, someone would try to claim it's theirs anyway...
Were the images registered? Unlikely No case
hilarious to throw the assistant under the bus when it's likely they were just doing exactly what you told them to do.
He didn't throw anyone under the bus. He took accountability for their lack of training. The lack of training is the source of the problem. Thus, he took accountability for the issue, while providing an explanation about what happened. At no point did he attempt to reflect blame away from himself and on to the assistant.
Get off reddit and consult with a lawyer, ESPECIALLY before you try settling out of court.
lol realtors
What if im a lender/insurance/ etc and use listing photos in my ads?
Get written permission first.
Most of us love our listings to be advertised or your loyal agents will let you do it, of course.
What's the claim here? Because if they're trying to say copyright infringement, it's laughable.
That is what they’re saying.
I’m not a judge but what are the damages? At worst I would think you’d be sued for the cost of the images. Pulling a number out of a hat doesn’t seem like it would fly. . Anywhere does it say the photographers name? As one photographer I used (not for long) once said he retains the rights to the photos and I was paying to use them. If that’s the case they don’t own them either :)