Reputable, are they ok to use on wikipedia?

What the fuck are you talking about?

Found the Zillow marketing intern.

Kate Wagner right? http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/mcmansion-hell-devil-details/

Gentlemen please relax just listen to this girl and judge for yourself. Is she actually doing anything productive? Or did she find a weird niche in starbucks hipster architects blog list?

"just listen to this girl and judge" Sounds like you need a good hard look in the mirror.

If I could figure out how to embed Tweets here on Archinect, chigurh, I'd post the Tweet someone sent to Kate of a picture from his FB feed of his former high school friend's McMansion with the caption "A year ago I would have felt envious of this guy's house, now I just laugh!" McMansion Hell is teaching normal people more about good design than any Ivy League MArch has in the history of the profession LOL.

The outcome of this lawsuit may gave some really far reaching implications on free speech. Scary.

Surely freedom of panorama laws are ok in the US? As an aside but could be important in a legal case it is quite obvious the images were used for satirical purpose and therefor ‘fair use’? Unless the plaintiffs are copyright originators/Zillow small print takes ownership in which case alarm bells should have rung for the photographers, and if that small print did obtain ownership from the copyright originator then unless it was absolutely clarified and obvious defence has a case to run with. 

Here in the UK the tories have done their worst to get rid of legal aid and fair legal representation, I hope this is only an aspiration and not a precedent from the US.

Yes, you're right that she's not being sued. And she has been so upfront about exactly what her situation is that I felt like I should have clarified that in my comments here yesterday, but I got busy, then I had some wine, then I finished up some drawings, and then I forgot.

OTOH, "She is another scab on society making money off hate. " is not only self-serving hate-mongering (pot...kettle) but a really fucking shitty thing to say about someone from behind your online anonymity.

I don't really understand how my comment can be made in anonymity and self serving at the same time. You sound a little hypocritical yourself. It's a fact she was making money off hate. Do you find her work insightful?

OTOH your elevating this from she received a cease and desist letter to "SHE'S BEING SUED!" Is a bit self serving. Along with her choosing to take down the blog rather than just the images she stole all stoke the fire of anger and hate she is profiting from.

Thank you for your sanity Brick Wall

I'm curious what inspired you two to come here and start wanking each other off. Self-righteous indignation? Troll itch need scratching? Slow day at the office? Personal beef?

You should read a bit about fair use and copyright infringement before sticking your foot too far into your mouth.

[wiki]

In May 2015, Richard Prince displayed his art gallery at the Frieze Art Fair. His gallery consisted of screenshots of Instagram users’ pictures with Prince’s commentary photoshopped below in the comments section. Not one Instagram user authorized Prince to use their pictures, but because Prince added his own commentary, the pictures were considered original artwork. One of the pieces sold for $90,000. Further, the Gagosian Gallery, where the pictures were showcased stated that "All images are subject to copyright."

From your wiki link miles "On March 18, 2011, US District Judge Deborah A. Batts ruled against Prince, Gagosian Gallery, Inc., and Lawrence Gagosian. The court found that the use by Prince was not fair use (his primary defence), and Cariou's issue of liability for copyright infringement was granted in its entirety.[17] The court cited much case law including the Rogers v. Koons case of 1992.[17] On April 25, 2013, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed Judge Batts's ruling, stating that Prince's use of the photographs in 25 works was transformative and thus fair use. Five less transformative works were sent back to the lower court for review.[18] The case settled in 2014"  

So your saying you find her work transformative? As in it has changed your opinion about McMansions? Or did it just reinforce a view you already held. Would informed and educated architectural viewers find this transformative? Because that's what overturned the ruling of some but not all of the works of Prince

Prince is still in business. He recently appealed a major loss and won. McMansion Hell is obviously transformative, the very meaning is changed.

I think your argument that the work is a transformative modification is the best conversation going here and the most reasonable. Thanks. But I have issues with that argument. Zillow is not selling houses. It is selling Advertisements. It uses these images to create a value statement about the property, and then profits from the Ad sales from the listing and Advertisements. She then takes the image and also makes a value statement about the property, though contradictory, It is still a value statement none the less. and one which she then uses to create revenue by selling adds and merchandise. There is no protection just because you are hating on something. having a different opinion about the value of the property does not entitle you to steal the images and use them for the same purpose of generating profit through ad revenue. She is profiting from hate. but the people on here tend to agree with her valuation more so they immediately decide she is right.  

"So your saying you find her work transformative? As in it has changed your opinion about McMansions? Or did it just reinforce a view you already held. Would informed and educated architectural viewers find this transformative? Because that's what overturned the ruling of some but not all of the works of Prince" (SIC)

trans·form·a·tive
tran(t)sˈfôrmədiv/
adjective

'Marked change' does not equal complete change of opinion, no matter how much you want your armchair lawyering to hold up.

Great link, Donna. 

"The first wrinkle is that Zillow isn’t the copyright holder of these photos."

It gets better:

"Interesting to note: Zillow has itself been the defendant in a copyright case, after they were sued by real estate photography company VHT, who claimed they didn’t have proper permissions for using 28,000 photos on Zillow’s home design subsite Zillow Digs. Initially ordered to pay $8.2 million in damages,the Chicago Tribune reported June 23 that a federal judge cut the bill down to just under $4.1 million."

Expounded above, how is it a copyright issue when it's under the Fair Use clause? Pretty sure McMansion Hell isn't profiteering from these photos.

All photos posted on the internet are not free to use. Your blog may say that but most architect websites as well as Zillow have terms of use.

"The subject matter is not the issue here. It's a copyright issue. But damn does your outrage speak volumes. I suppose you would classify these McMansion owners as deplorables too right?"

I really dislike it when pepe bandwagon jumpers like the same Cohen brothers movies I do.

Shut the fuck up, ThatBrickWall, you're out of your element.

So... this wanker only pops up here to defend Zillow... and is surprised that no-one takes him/her seriously? How refreshing.

So ad hominem attacks then? I'm an outsider and love McMansions and Zillow. Good work

I have no problem with anyone mocking schlocky work, my own included. First amendment, baby! God bless America.

Showing up here out of the blue, anonymous, and calling the community here "haters" is not an auspicious self-introduction. So let's place some credit where it is due.

"So tell me why then cannot someone not start a blog copying your work off your website and writing snarky responses on it?"

Because that's not selling the product, its selling the snark about the product. Big difference. As miles says, inverting the meaning to something totally different, makes it different.

it doesn't stop, it just weeds out that without any value, like zillow.

"So tell me why then cannot someone not start a blog copying your work off your website and writing snarky responses on it?"

They can, you ass. That's the entire fucking POINT.

Ok so that's a bad analogy I'm willing to admit that. The product being sold by both parties in this instance is the same. Advertisements. How about that?

http://www.adweek.com/tag/Parody/

Hey, another wanker who appears just to defend Zillow.

postmodern is dead, pick another fake style for your rant. now do you math and tell us how much these mutant elephant cages sell per foot, you'd be surprised.

"postmodern glass and steel box that cost $500 bucks a foot to build" - where on earth can that be done? Asphalt shingle roof and cedar sidewalls with painted interior starts @ $400/sf around here.

[postmodern is dead] Hallelujah

That party ended 20 years ago. And not a moment too soon.

Build cost only. We are assuming you inherited the land.

who are "we"? and yes, a lot of assumptions, like the florida lawyer that wanted his 20 million mountain house for 250 s/f. - a lot of "professionals" don't have a clue or just want a quick scam to be rich.

You keep pounding a straw man narrative that nobody seems to buy. You claim to be here to defend copyright yet don't seem to be willing to have a discussion about the nuances of fair use. Instead you bash your rhetorical head against the assumption that everyone here only likes that site because of some political bias (see your comments about liberals above). I have no sympathy for you, and I don't believe for a second that you're here for any other reason than to troll. And bro, you suck at it.

Alright forget your bias, we don't have to acknowledge that. let's have that nuanced discussion about fair use. It's OK for her to have a valuation, and use the image to sell ads? Literally the exact same thing.

The exact same thing as...?

the exact same thing zillow is doing. they say it is worth X, because of whatever list of features. She is saying it is worthless because of whatever list of features. They both make money the same way with the same image.

Or is it more akin to a comedian reading a copyrighted text as a setup to a joke? Or a musician using samples to make new music? At the genesis of this debate lies the point of copyright, something mega-companies have been perverting for massive profit for decades. Copyright was never intended to be what it is, and this is a prime example of why that's true.

It is not same. Because the comedian is creating something new, the musician is creating something new. If she were to go further, to design a decent house with that footprint, to demonstrate how it could be modified, that would be something new. She is just being critical. The analogy would be better stated as could a music critic copy a musician's music just because they want to critic it. Are we not all critics of music and therefore entitled to any musician's music?

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=film+criticism

All use clips of films they didn't make. All make money from ads. Next.

But they are taking from the film, which does not make its money on ads, providing a critique which is a new product and making money on ads. If I copy the material in their critique and air it on my channel with a different critique that would be a problem. With the two critics one would be in violation.

Your set of circumstances keeps getting narrower. Are you interested in the conversation or are you just trying to win an argument? My views on the matter come from the standard distaste for a big business going after an inconsequential little guy and making sure they stay just grey enough on the law to attempt to guarantee that it'll never get to court (chilling effect). That's the place where your majorly narrow nuanced argument would be tested, and someone like this blogger wouldn't exactly be able to afford a high priced lawyer. So when she threw her story into the court of public opinion, it got her some publicity, which means that there's attention being paid to the very narrow, specific set of circumstances you state. I think that's a good thing.

I don't think this example applies. they couldn't sue because they do not have the same motives. one the real estate agency and the architecture firm are trying to make money selling a building, and the design services. The blog is trying to make money selling ads. What we are talking about here is both parties using the image to sell ads

So MVRDV isn't trying to sell their project? k, lol

Also, you don't think Failed Architecture's traffic would boost their readership count? kk, hahahaha

MVRDV is not trying to sell ads

Think you're confused. The analogy brought up likened MVRDV to Zillow.

MVRDV is trying to sell the project, and their services. Zillow is selling Ads, She is selling ads.

Failed Architecture sells ads too. Point?

MVRDV does not have same product as Failed Architecture. This is a good example of fair use. They are creating something new, a critique. And profiting from it. Zillow is creating a critique the same way, she is also creating a critic but using material copied of the other critic.

Not sure if your're deliberately obtuse but both cases involve images. And not sure why you're likening MVRDV to FA. Zillow is a real estate agency, they're not critiquing anything. McMansion Hell is doing the critiquing of aforementioned subject matter.

Zillow is not a real estate agency they don't sell real estate.

zillow is creating a critique? in what way?

In that they list assets and features along with creating their own valuation.

BS

Correct neither is selling the images. They are both providing a critique of the property in the images. But Zillow has to license those photos but she does not? How can that be?

Zillow "licenses" the photos by leveraging their web presence as a sales tool.  No money changes hands for these licenses, just the hope that your listing gets more exposure.  McMansion is doing satire- clear fair use.  Zillow is thorectically helping sell houses.  McMansion is lampooning the design of houses.  Call it art, humor or education- no matter. 

That was fun reading. The arguments to defend Zillow on this thread ... not so much.

Yeah, I normally enjoy reading legalese about as much as I enjoy reading building codes and construction specs, but this letter was particularly gratifying. Zillow brought a pocket knife to a bazooka fight, and promptly got their head blown off.

That didn't take long.

I think you still missed the point. She offered to not use Zillow for the source of the images she uses in the future. She didn't have to do that for any reason other than she decided to. Erik's experience (and yours apparently) are nothing like this one.

Well done, citizen.