Yet another reason to dislike Realtor.com

Posted on September 18, 2007 by Jim Duncan

In order to serve my clients, I have to pay significant amounts of money to have more than one picture on Realtor.com. In order to publish my listing content on Realtor.com, which is supposed to be for the benefit of both Realtors and Move.com’s shareholders (both of whom have divergent and opposed interests) – I have to agree to Move’s Terms and Conditions, which include this nifty

The professional photographs which I commission, to which I own the copyright, I am forced to relinquish the rights to:

8. Proprietary Rights. As between the parties hereto, Move exclusively owns and retains all right, title and interest in and to the Product in perpetuity throughout the Universe. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, and subject to Move’s receipt of payments specified in the Order, the Product is licensed (not sold) to You by Move. Move does not transfer title to the Product to You. This non-exclusive license only gives You the right to use and display the units of the Product that are licensed to You hereunder in accordance with the terms hereof. You hereby agree that to the maximum extent permitted by law, You will not decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble or otherwise reduce the Product to a human-perceivable form, in whole or in part, and, except as provided for in this license, You will not copy, modify, network, rent, lease, sublicense, or otherwise distribute the Product in whole or in part. All rights in and to the Product not expressly granted to You in this Agreement are reserved by Move.

Am I overreacting?

Update 09/18/2007: I changed the title from “hate” to “dislike.” Hate is too strong a word.

Technorati Tags: , ,

About Jim Duncan

A Charlottesville Realtor who tries to stay on the bleeding/cutting/functional edge of technology and real estate trends. I have been selling real estate for the past 10 years, lived in C'Ville for twenty+ and am married to one of few Charlottesville natives left.
This entry was posted in Technology. Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://www.flexmls.com/blog/ Michael Wurzer

    Jim, do you have a link to the Terms of Use? I ask because I think the answer to your question depends on how “the Product” is defined. Based on the text you’ve quoted, I would think Realtor.com is referring to their software and not the content, but that would be answered by the definition of “the Product.”

  • http://www.realcentralva.com Jim Duncan

    No link to the Terms of Use, but here is the definition –

    As used herein, “Products” shall refer to technology (for example, website, blog or property-information applications), online content, CDs, or similar products ordered on the Order.

    .

    I am most irritated with “online content” which is created by Realtors. without the content, there would be no Realtor.com/Move.com.

  • http://www.flexmls.com/blog/ Michael Wurzer


    Here’s a link    . As you mention, when you upload photos, you grant Move and irrevocable license to use the photos however it wants.

  • http://jlmcharlottesville.blogspot.com Jennifer

    you are not overreacting AND you are so right to read those terms. My goodness that is unreasonable.

  • http://talk.realtor.com/ Dustin

    Jim,

    I’m NOT a lawyer and this definitely doesn’t represent any legal view by Move, Inc or REALTOR.com… With that major caveat, it is my understanding that all REALTORS have a contract with REALTOR.com that clearly references the ownership of photos that would supersede the Terms of Use you mention above. From what I’m told, the contract is much clearer in specifying that you, as a REALTOR, retain ownership of your uploaded content.

  • http://www.realcentralva.com Jim Duncan

    Thanks for commenting, Dustin.

    It’s the “Universe” part that got me. That and the fact that the relationship is a Catch-22. Without content (listings) Realtor.com wouldn’t exist as it is. Without Realtor.com, (currently) I can’t serve my clients effectively.

    I guess I could look at it as a mutually-beneficial relationship, but for the ads draping “my” (broker’s) content. I’d love to see that superceding contract, though.

    But the “throughout the Universe” really rubbed me the wrong way, though.

  • http://talk.realtor.com/ Dustin

    Yeah… I agree that “universe” may not be broad enough. I’ll see if I can get the lawyers to expand the phrasing a bit to make sure we cover all of our potential users into the future! ;)

  • http://www.reagentinct.com Sock Puppet

    I think r.com is refering to r.com itself rather than photos.

    The “Universe” line is LMAO funny though. Though I do understand r.com is the constant target of denial of service attacks from hackers in the Delta Quadrant, so it may well be required.

  • http://www.phoenixrealestateguy.com Jay Thompson

    “Am I overreacting?”

    In a word, no.