ADDED: The blogger is not deleting the blog. Start here and scroll to see the posts. I'm pretty sure I've linked to it before. If you like mockery of bad architecture and interior decoration, it's great.
ALSO: The post about the litigation threat went up on the same day that The Washington Post published an article — "The ultimate symbol of the pre-recession boom is back" — that talked about McMansion Hell and featured the blogger (Kate Wagner) in a very charming video:
Ah, yes. There's an update on the WaPo article:
Update: On Monday evening, after this story was published, Wagner received a letter from house hunting website Zillow that accused her of violating the site's terms by using its images. The "cease and desist" letter demanded she take all images down.So it's a terms of use violation (not a copyright claim). Terrible. Zillow should be ashamed of itself. What crap PR for Zillow. It just pointlessly and stupidly makes people hate Zillow.
Posts
44 comments:
"Says McMansion Hell (a very funny and useful blog)."
Not at the moment. Lawyers ruin everything.
"Not at the moment. Lawyers ruin everything."
Why are you saying that? The blogger is declining the invitation to delete the blog. I'll add a second link so it's obvious what you need to do to see the posts on the blog.
So is the idea that the blog is using photos from Zillow (without permission)in order to make its points; and that Zillow isn't buying the argument that this reuse "for educational purposes" is "fair use"?
Or does Zillow explicitly or covertly oppose the viewpoint of the blog?
Slightly OT but if you scroll down the first page of the blog he talks about late modern buildings including brutalism. That gives me a chance to talk about one of the items on my bucket list.
http://beautifulsavage.com/design/yugoslavian-brutalist-architecture/
There are some amazing weird and wacky buildings built by the communist government in the former Yugoslavia. You won't regret looking!
Can't read his blog. He is "going offline for a while" because of the Zillow lawsuit.
It's dangerous to speak spoof to power.
Correction: Not offline. You can see the old posts. His links are a little obscure (to me at least) but they are there.
Does Zillow even own the photos. Wouldn't the photos be owned by the homeowner or listing agent.
I'm so sorry I did not discover that earlier. Now I feel obliged to read the whole thing really fast before lawyers make her destroy it. It's hilarious!
Kate Wagner is the blogger, good for her for not folding. Her About Page refers to her studies in architectural acoustics--I would think she's got a claim to the educational value to her critiques and credited use of photographs.
A guy I know from college....his wife's uncle is a high level exec for a large Twin Cities corporation. That guy was going to be out-of-the-country for a year a while back. So this young couple (about 26 years old) lived in his house for the year. A 3 story more-than-McMansion. I love capitalism and if you work hard and are successful, fine. Enjoy things.
But it just seemed excessive. Maybe 6,000 sq ft. Most young couples have what?.....1200 sq ft?
Unhappy Hipsters was snark aimed at snooty modern design aficionados. This is like making fun of the disabled.
Looked at a couple posts at that blog (you have to scroll down) and it's actually a reasoned critique of architectural styles. We're going to have to go full Streisand on Zillow for its silliness.
Never argue with someone who buys bits by the terabyte.
Attacking a spoof site should result in lesson one of how not to be taken seriously.
"Not at the moment. Lawyers ruin everything."
Why are you saying that?
It does seem as if Zillow uses the same legal as Susan G. Komen who sue any charity using 'for the cure', 'cure' or the color pink.
Grade A snark, but as rehajm said, it's fish in a barrel.
Is this woman an architect, interior designer, realtor, or all of the above?
Given that Zillow has been labeled a frat house in lawsuits, you wouldn't think they would be attacking a woman and her livelihood. I wonder if those two attorneys will contact her.
There could not be a better example of fair use. What she needs is an experienced First Amendment/copyright attorney to write a humorous letter, posted online, telling Zillow to go fuck itself and the horse it rode in on. The ensuing shame and humiliation will cause Zillow to ask its attorneys why they chose to die on this particular indefensible hill.
bad architecture and interior decoration
It's whats inside that counts... believed by almost no one.
"Unhappy Hipsters was snark aimed at snooty modern design aficionados. This is like making fun of the disabled."
I quickly skimmed the first few pages. I love nearly everything on there! I'd love to live in a home in the style of those shown.
I love McMansion hell. Sometimes I see houses and want to snap a picture to send to the blog. I'm not sure how Zillow has a leg to stand on. Aren't they just aggregating pictures from realtor listings? Before we bought our house it was listed by the owners two different times. Both sets of pictures are on our zillow page.
We've been talking about moving lately. We have a large family, so we do have to look at larger houses. I told my spouse and kids, "I don't care what the rest of the house has going for it, I will not live in a house with a dumb turret."
I loved that blog. His descriptions of the tacky, wasteful spaces, bad designs, ugly furniture, are wonderful. Snarky and amusing.
Zillow doesn't have a leg to stand on because his 'reviews' don't include a property address.
@ Cook.
I would HATE to live in any of those houses. Besides all of the bad design.... Too big. Who is going to clean all that space? Not me!!!
"I would HATE to live in any of those houses. Besides all of the bad design.... Too big. Who is going to clean all that space? Not me!!!"
Are you talking about the houses shown on McMansion Hell or the ones on Unhappy Hipsters?
The ones on McMansion Hell are certainly dreary at best, hideous at worst. The modern homes on Unhappy Hipster are (mostly) beautiful, and they didn't appear to be excessively spacious at all.
I'd love to live in a home in the style of those shown.
You would have to be thin, and wear tight, black clothes all day while drinking wine.
Curiously, none of the people in the photos look like hipsters, they look like deplorables.
Very jarring, or is that half the joke?
What do deplorables look like? Who are the deplorables again?
Hillary's basket of deplorables--you know, normal people.
Cook said: Are you talking about the houses shown on McMansion Hell or the ones on Unhappy Hipsters?
McMansion Hell. I don't know the other site (must look it up) Living in California, I know many people who own or have lived in those houses. They are Godawful. Huge. Boringly tan. Wasted spaced. Boringly identical. Crammed together. Some people who bought into the McMansion suburbs (that emerged practially overnight like dank mushrooms) found that they couldn't afford to decorate their houses. You would often see bed sheets on the upper story windows as curtains, baking in the hot hot hot Sacramento Valley summers.
Sad.
Yes, McMansions are ghastly, without doubt!
"Hillary's basket of deplorables--you know, normal people."
Oh. I never paid any attention to any fabricated words issued from her mouth.
I was told that around here, they would rent furniture when they wanted to entertain--and that was before the Panic of 08.
The photos belong to the listing agent.
I don't know what's wrong with me, but I'm not that amused by making fun (in a public forum) of average people's lives. I feel the same way about People of Walmart. I do like Awful Family Photos, I guess because the people there are trying something, and often submit their own photos.
But you know, if people are happy with their homes or their lives, why does the internet have to make fun of them?
Maybee, we have to look down on somebody.
don't know what's wrong with me, but I'm not that amused by making fun (in a public forum) of average people's lives
Making fun of empty grandiosity goes back to the Greeks, at least.
don't know what's wrong with me, but I'm not that amused by making fun (in a public forum) of average people's lives
That's my take. There are worse crimes than mixing French and Italian architecture.
I don't quite understand how Zillow has sufficient status to sue anyone. They publish information from local government tax and assessment websites, including pictures of houses where the houses are not on the market. In my case, I was never contacted, but my house is listed using my house number - 4706. What follows on Zillow is the picture of the house located at #4607. That picture comes directly from my county's public access website.
including pictures of houses where the houses are not on the market. In my case, I was never contacted, but my house is listed using my house number -
I started to show a relative a house we made an offer on last fall, before we bought our house in Tucson.
Zillow won't let me look at it to show her. The sellers took it off the market after they refused our low offer but other houses are still shown.
I don't know what criteria they use
@Michael K said...
I don't know what criteria they use.
What I didn't mention was that the house at #4607 isn't on the market either. It last sold in March 2015.
In any regard, this kind of evidence would weaken their court case. Plus, Zillow doesn't own the houses anyway - they only label them badly.
If you don't like Zillow, vote with your feet and go to Trulia.
Smug architect uses poorly designed website to make fun of other people's taste.
If Zillow wants to be a stickler about intellectual property claims, they happen to be using an awful lot of my real estate writing right now without attribution. And I'm not the only one this is happening to.
Danno: Zillow owns Trulia.
"The modern homes on Unhappy Hipster are (mostly) beautiful, and they didn't appear to be excessively spacious at all."
I love 80% of the Unhappy Hipster places. I wonder why so much of what is out there on the market is McMansion Hell-type junk and so little is Unhappy Hipster. Where are the modern houses?
Can you sue someone for violating terms of service when your website doesn't require registration or have any access controls?
I just opened Zillow in an anonymous browser window (to make sure I didn't have any cookies). I could perform searches, click on houses, and see all relevant details without even clicking an "I agree to this site's Terms of Service" button.
Did the author even make an implied agreement to abide by Zillow's terms of service here? How could you tell?
Post a Comment