Mon 21 Aug 2006

Sellers hire real estate agents to sell their homes. Sellers want the information disemeninated far and wide, and don’t care how it’s done. Most agents want the same thing, and pay dearly for print ads, flyers and web leads, and the good ones know the free websites to use for online promotion.
But what does an agent do when their company prevents, discourages or illegalizes these free forms of web promotion?
Many companies have provisions that state that all listings are the property of the company and are subject to copyright laws. In Seattle, the large firms all have “Terms of Service” or other such rules and regulations that state that all listings are the property of the company. Even the NWMLS’s listing forms indicate that the listings belong to the broker, not the individual agent. I suspect it’s the same in most states.
Many firms don’t want independant 3rd-parties publicizing and advertising their listings. The local MLS has rules regarding interior photos, that those are property of each individual broker and cannot be used without permission. Even blogs, such as Redfin’s are breaking copyright laws by publishing information & photos of other agent’s individual listings, without their permission, when they include interior photos, though, in their defense they haven’t done that in awhile. Maybe they got called for it, I don’t know. (Personally I love when they advertise my listings… Hint: I have a new million dollar townhome on Queen Anne that would look lovely on your blog!) The right wasy to do it is as Asset Realty Group blog does, is by asking permission to feature, as they did with my groovy Mid-century Modern listing in Kirkland. (Again, I want to make it clear, no one needs to my permission to feature any of my listings, at any time, on any blog or website. Advertise my listings to your hearts content!)
But this practice of advertising other agents listings does bother some people, not to mention violates some MLS boards rules, the National Association of Realtors, and some companies copyright rules.
Which brings me to Trulia.
What’s there not to love? They market themselves as a independent, unbiased media company offering both free and paid opportunities to market property listings online, with the basic links from Trulia to the property detail pages, free. They disclose agents contact info, and don’t try to sell me the leads. That sounds darn near perfect.
So, why does the NAR not want to allow wholesale scraping of all listings this way?
Well, for one thing, the business model of Trulia could change. If the NAR and separate brokerages don’t have the option to opt out, refuse or forbid this scraping and if they don’t take a hardline to it, then Trulia or the next company, could scrape the listings, put them on their portal, and then, instead of filtering the leads to the individual agents, direct them to their own agents instead. Or worse, sell their own leads back to the original listing agent.
No large or well-known company is illegally doing this yet, as far as I know, but it could happen.
But if the NAR and our local MLS and the local brokerages don’t at least give the appearance of caring, then they could lose their rights over this issue. If this information is NOT copyrighted, then everyone would have access to it. As it stands, a portal, such as Yahoo Real Estate, needs to contract with a member of the NWMLS (in this state, it’s PrudentialNW) to access and show all the MLS listings.
So, back to Trulia. They say they have no plans to join the MLS in the different states. Instead, they’ll allow an individual agent to submit a feed, or they have whole companies that do so. Individual companies such as “Help-U-Sell” and “Realty Executives” and “Prudential” do so, and also website developers such as Z57 and Advanced Access and Number 1 Expert.
But what does the agent do who has signed a TOS Agreement with their broker indicating that the Broker owns the listings and the broker does not want their listings advertised on Trulia? Z57, Advanced Access, Number 1 Agent and many more website developers have submitted their feed to Trulia, to allow them to display their listings, in violation of many of these individual agents TOS agreements. Winderemere, J.L. Scott, Coldwell Banker Bain, and many other local and national companies have NOT authorized their listings to appear on Trulia, but they do, under the auspices and with the consent of these website developers, but not the agent’s brokers.
Trulia dilemna for everyone involved.
It’s a plus for individual agents as all leads are sent directly to them. But it’s an unauthorized use of listings. Most of these website designers provide an opt-out box if the individual agents want to do so, but how many even know it’s there?
As more individual brokerages realize that their listings are being shown on this (and other similar portal sites) without their permission, I wonder if they will be more persistent in enforcing their copyright.








August 21st, 2006 at 11:36 pm
A great post which shows the struggle between an agent’s desire, and fiduciary duty under licensing law and NAR Code of Ethics, to serve their clients’ interest, to wit, the sale of their property, the seller/clients’ coincident desire to have widespread dissemination of the listing so their property is sold quickly for the best price, & others’ interest to prevent display & dissemination by those who would usurp or curtail the broker’s role (and corresponding entitlement to just compensation).
The use of copyright law is one means to prevent this display & dissemination of a listing but it has its limitations. For one thing, facts (whatever they may be & they be something) are not copyrightable. Second, if an agent (or seller) takes the listing photos, writes the ad copy, copies the floorplans created by the builder, and agent & seller together create the listing price, the copyrights belong to the agent &/or seller & builder. Even if the agent signed away any claim to copyright in their works, the agent could NEVER sign away the seller’s (or builder’s)copyrights without their permission.
Since long standing custom & practice is to display listings in ads to sell real estate, any policies affecting the display of these ads are necessarily examined to determine if they restain the trade of real estate (commerce), a key component of this country’s economic health. Hence the underlying DOJ scrutiny of NAR’s policies.
DOJ may very well decide this issue for the industry and it may surprise some people that sellers & buyers will be the focus of the decision and that the banking industry is the big bad wolf NAR should really fear, and not portals like Trulia.
August 22nd, 2006 at 7:55 am
[…] Marlow Harris at 360Digest has an incisive post about the incipient conflict between copyright-holding brokers and national dot.com real estate listing aggregators: But what does the agent do who has signed a TOS Agreement with their broker indicating that the Broker owns the listings and the broker does not want their listings advertised on Trulia? Z57, Advanced Access, Number 1 Agent and many more website developers have submitted their feed to Trulia, to allow them to display their listings, in violation of many of these individual agents TOS agreements. Winderemere, J.L. Scott, Coldwell Banker Bain, and many other local and national companies have NOT authorized their listings to appear on Trulia, but they do, under the auspices and with the consent of these website developers, but not the agent’s brokers. […]
August 22nd, 2006 at 9:11 am
Marlow,
Great post. I think that the conflict with Trulia is going to vary widely by area. MLS rules are different in every area, and the brokerage laws that affect listing data are different in every area. It sounds like, in the Seattle area, if the display of listing data on sites like Trulia is a violation of an agent’s TOS agreement with his or her broker, then the blame is on the Agent. I find it hard to believe that the web developer is going to post the data without regard to the desire of the agent or broker. If an agent tells Z57 or Number 1 not to post the feed to Trulia, then it would stop.
August 22nd, 2006 at 2:23 pm
Great Post and I love the line
Trulia dilemna for everyone involved.
Classic…
August 25th, 2006 at 11:14 am
What if Your Real Estate Agent Will Not Let You Market Your Own House?…
I was just reading a very interesting post by Marlow Harris over at the 360digest Weblog about Trulia and he asks a great question.
But what does an agent do when their company prevents, discourages or illegalizes these free forms of web promotion…
September 1st, 2006 at 8:44 am
I don’t trust Trulia in the least to not change into a lead generator. If agents look at the big picture they will realize feeding content to sites like this is not a good idea. The last thing we want is everyone to start thinking that google base or trulia or any other location is the place to go to get info about homes for sale.
We give away way to much free information.
September 11th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
[…] Marlow Harris of 360 Digest presents Trulia Dilemma. It seems Trulia is facilitating the misuse of copyrighted material, but it remains to be seen if/who will do something about it. […]
September 30th, 2006 at 7:55 am
Ken, Trulia already is a lead generator. No different than HouseValues or HomeGain they plan to make money off Realtors. It’s crazy Realtors are falling for it. A broker should think really are before they give up their hard earned listings to any site that plans to make money off them.
Here’s another post that should be read by any broker considering giving up their listings to Trulia or any other company mentioned in the great discussion above:
http://realestate20.wordpress.com/2006/09/15/trulia-truly-a-pimp/