You’re looking at what is, arguably, one of the better of the five photographs accompanying a listing that came on the market two months ago in the $320s and recently dropped in price to the $260s.
The listing description informs us that the condo is a “must see” and that it “won’t last.”
An in-house tipster alerted me to this property based on the price drop and the location. We won’t feature it on Yo because we know that the typical home buyer takes a quick and likely irrevocable pass on any listing that lacks good images. And because I see far too many images exactly like this one in the course of my day.
VHT and other companies provide excellent real estate photography at shockingly low prices – a tiny fraction of the commission the seller will pay on this condo if it ever sells.
Good photos are an essential minimum part of any real estate marketing program today. At YoChicago we believe that the future of real estate marketing is video, and that video will eventually become a “must see” for home buyers and sellers.
You can see nearly 2,000 YoChicago videos at our primary YouTube channel and easily search all of our videos at YoChicago.
Don’t you love seeing pictures of clothes on the floor or the photographer themselves in the bathroom mirror 🙂
Joe, how did you manage to get the realtor’s permission to use this photo, given that it’s so embarrassing to them?
Nice try, Gary.
No permission asked or needed – fair use exception to the copyright laws.
Want to debate why YoChicago is eligible for that exception and a real estate agent’s competitor is not?
Please enlighten me and point me to the part of the law that makes this distinction.
You really ought to consult an attorney, Gary.
You ought to have done that after I questioned your use of photos at your blog.
I’ve made several attempts to educate you in the past. Not going to try again. I haven’t found you to have much regard for facts. That’s the reason I stopped commenting on and stopped visiting your blog, and why we stopped including items from your blog in our news feeds.
Anyone who cares to review the futility of (some of) my prior efforts can read this comment thread and this one at Gary’s blog.
I think you missed the link.
Nice try, Joe.
Your seeming never ending condescension, contradictions, hypocrisy, ignorance, lack of objectivity and hidden agendas never cease to amaze me.
Gary was NOT saying that your use of the photos were in violation of any copyright rules. He was sarcastically pointing out your hypocrisy from this article to your prior responses / attacks towards his blog post entitled “Worst Realtor Photos Ever: The Leaning House and Other Atrocities”.
Not only does your current article state and use real estate photo examples in the exact same manner and context as Gary did but you still try and claim that you have special “fair use exceptions” to the copyright laws where, for some delusional reason, Gary does not.
For those unaware, Joe previously claimed Gary “violated” copyright laws due to Gary’s criticism and comments about some bad realtor photos examples in his blog “Getting Real”. However, like then, Joe still refuses to provide a single fact to support any of his claims and continues to make unsubstantiated personal attacks towards Gary (and many others) and veiled legal threats.
The simple fact, as you are apt to write, is that you are “wrong, wrong, wrong” not only about Gary’s photo usage but also about how “YoChicago is eligible for that exception and a real estate agent’s competitor is not”.
The US Copyright Office’s own website (http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html) states, in part, “Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.”
Even though BOTH your and Gary’s blogs criticize and comment upon bad real estate listing photo examples, your claim of a “fair use exception” for YoChicago is outrageous as it is pretty clear, from your own words, that your ENTIRE “purpose and character of the use” is purely “of commercial nature”.
Contrary to Gary’s non-commercial blog “Getting Real”, not only is your YoChicago blog / site a commercial enterprise but your purpose of usage seems to be nothing more than just another targeted promotional tool for a “client”. In this particular case, it appears the “client” is VHT – you not only link their company website but claim that they “provide excellent real estate photography at shockingly low prices”.
As I have seen and questioned you about your “production work” previously (and received unsubstantiated personal attacks towards myself in reply), I will not comment further on why I feel you lack any real / quantifiable qualifications in order to claim anyone’s production work as “excellent” or not.
It is not Gary but you who “really ought to consult an attorney” about current copyright laws (or before making your veiled legal threats). If you have read any of the case laws, articles and publications about “fair use exemptions” that I provided previously (written by the TOP copyright legal scholars, schools and lawyers in the US), you would have realized the simple and substantiated fact is that the copyright laws have changed significantly in the 3 decades or so since you were actually a licensed attorney.
Nonetheless, for what I think is the first time, I do actually agree with your position that the future of real estate marketing involves more use of video as well as other photographic techniques (i.e. cinemagraphs).
However, the original question about your real motivation and purpose of this article (and your participation on any blog site) remains as you still refuse to answer Gary’s (or others’) simple question with a single substantiated fact. Could it be that VHT (clearly a commercial enterprise) is another so-called “top-tier” YoChicago “client”? Is there some type of “pay per click” or sales commission arrangement in place between VHT and YoChicago? Could it be that your “top-tier” real estate agent “clients” (VHT’s website contains several testimonials from “top tier clients”) recommends (up-sell) VHT’s commercial services to home sellers?
To be clear, the purpose of my replying is not because I expect to receive an honest answer (I actually expect yet another unsubstantiated personal attack) but rather because I “haven’t found you to have much regard for facts” and I have learned that those who propagate their own ignorances as “facts” often results in serious and long-term repercussions and damages that innocents are forced to endure.
Brad,
For starters, VHT is not and never has been a client of any of our ventures. We’ve never had any commercial relationship with VHT.
I’ve known VHT’s founder for many years and have a high regard for him and his company. I’ve seen, as you might expect, many 1,000s of photos taken by his operation. I speak highly of VHT for the same reason that many real estate agents do – VHT does a great job, and they’re without peer at their price point.
You’re equally wrong about the distinction between YoChicago’s efforts and Gary’s.
Readers can note that I linked to my prior exchange with Gary so that they could understand – as I did from the outset – where Gary was coming from.
I’ve read the relevant law, and have the background and the ability to understand it. There’s no hypocrisy in comprehending legal distinctions. And some people’s arguments richly merit condescension.
Joe,
I am glad to know that you (YoChicago) and VHT do not have a commercial relationship. I hope you can understand the basis for my earlier skepticism as all the posts that I have read of yours which discussed the importance of good real estate photos in terms of marketing only mention VHT as a professional solution.
Like you, I have seen thousands of poorly produced and executed commercial, advertising, film projects but my production / marketing experience is in a vastly different genre than “real estate” which was why, in my prior comment, I was not opining, professionally or personally, in any way about VHT’s work or price point.
Readers can note that, despite my very simple question about what you think is the “distinction”, you just continue to state I am “equally wrong about the distinction between YoChicago’s efforts and Gary’s” without providing a document, code section, example, etc. that would substantiate any of your claims.
I have re-read Gary’s article as well as re-read those that I found that you have written about “real estate photos”. Other than your articles specifically mentioning VHT, I can find NO real discernable difference between the content or the “communicated message” of those posts.
As to the distinction between YoChicago (and your posts on other sites) and Getting Real (and Gary’s posts on other sites), I see a vast distinction between the two. YoChicago is a commercial enterprise with many paying advertising clients which is also, per your own marketing documents, paid to participate on other sites to further “direct” your clients’ messages. As far as I know, Getting Real is not a commercial enterprise and Gary has no “advertising clients” who pay him to participate on other sites on their behalf.
Readers can also note that I, too, detailed the prior exchange but, once again, you still do NOT say where you think Gary is “coming from”. All your prior responses were just about how “wrong”, “copyright violation”, “consult an attorney”, etc. but NOTHING substantive. So rather than just say “I said it before” why don’t you clearly state where you think Gary is “coming from”?
As to your having “read the relevant law” you, once again, refuse to identify the basis of your claims. I have previously provided you with not only the actual wording of the law, provided links to relevant sections of the US Copyright Office website as well as links and PDF scans of case law, legal analysis, examples and additional irrefutable information. I will make this very easy, what is the “relevant law” that you are referring to?
Finally, as to your having the “background and ability to understand it” which, besides being another unsupported statement, is just another baseless personal attack implying that I lack such background and ability.
You may have been a corporate lawyer 30+ years ago but I have been dealing with copyright law on EVERY project that I have worked on for over 20+ years (many thousands of projects including many for your “clients”) which includes having spent, literally, millions upon millions of dollars copyrighting and securing / licensing copyrights. For that reason alone, I would bet that my background and understanding of copyrights and copyright law (and their legal distinctions) are exponentially greater than your own. However, I still do not claim to be a copyright expert (although I have a copyright attorney who is) so why not clearly state what you think is the “legal distinction”?
I agree that people who make arguments / claims but refuse to substantiate anything they say do “richly merit condescension”. So that readers won’t place you in that category, what and where are your “facts”? How about providing a single one that supports what you say?
Talk to your attorney, Brad.
“Skepticism” doesn’t entitle you to make stuff up.
Anyone who wants to understand my refusal to engage further with Brad can go to Gary’s blog and read this exchange there.
Joe,
LOL – Thanks. Your response just won me $100 as I bet that “Joe won’t answer my questions but will try to make a personal attack and make some type of legal threat.”
However, your now publishing that I am a liar, in anyway, on a commercial site in which we share the same clients is not only egregious but borders on libel / defamation especially as anyone capable of reading would see that I have already provided extensive supporting documentation.
For myself (and I am sure all who read this) it is clear that the real reason that you won’t engage further is simple – you can’t for the simple reason there isn’t a single verifiable example or relevant law / statute that exists which would support any of your claims let alone the one that explains how you (YoChicago) are eligible for “fair use exemptions” to copyright law while Gary (and everyone else who comments upon bad real estate photos) is not.
Anyone interested in learing more aobut the distinction and the facts about “fair use exemptions” can read (or google themselves) the information already provided to see for themselves.
In case you have forgotten what your first year law professors tried to teach you decades ago, I remind you that “truth is always a defense” whereas ignorance never is.
Ciao
I’ll leave you with the last word, Brad. Anyone can read the exchanges and draw their own conclusions.
I truly feel sorry for you Joe as, besides the minimal entertainment value, your words are just a further confirmation for the conclusions that I (and many others) have already drawn about you and your motivations.
I look forward to the day where I can read and discuss a single verifiable and objective (i.e. unpaid) “fact” you write.
Until then, thanks again for the $100 I won.
First time on, is this blog always this heated?