
EFF's Letter to Zillow on Behalf of McMansion Hell [pdf] - harryh
https://www.eff.org/files/2017/06/29/wagner_eff_letter_to_zillow_-_2017.06.29.pdf
======
wyldfire
EFF is a public good, clearly we all benefit from them taking the time to
draft this letter. This letter is merely between attorneys but has all of the
work required for a legal brief including tons of citations of precedent.

Thanks, EFF!

~~~
throwaway9109
EFF isn't as good. They criticize NSA and other alleged privacy violators
while it turns a blind eye on the worst offenders: google and facebook. I
would not donate to them.

~~~
beardicus
Wrong. EFF has gone after both Facebook and Google. Specifically, they filed
an FTC complaint against Google claiming privacy violations, and they defended
a client against a CFAA lawsuit from Facebook. This took 30 seconds to look
up. I'm sure there's more examples, but I can't be arsed.

~~~
mikegerwitz
The FTC complaint was for student privacy:

[https://www.eff.org/document/ftc-complaint-google-
education](https://www.eff.org/document/ftc-complaint-google-education)

Their student privacy campaign has been invaluable to me, and I have used
numerous EFF resources in (ongoing) correspondence and a meeting with
assistant superintendents of my school district on precisely those topics.

------
tanderson92
Update: Zillow won't pursue any legal action.

> In a brief statement, Zillow said it will “not pursue any legal action.”

> "We’ve had a lot of conversations about this, including with attorneys from
> the EFF, whose advocacy and work we respect. EFF has stated that McMansion
> Hell won’t use photos from Zillow moving forward. It was never our intent
> for McMansion Hell to shut down or for this to appear as an attack on Kate’s
> freedom of expression. We acted out of an abundance of caution to protect
> our partners—the agents and brokers who entrust us to display photos of
> their clients’ homes."

[https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/06/mcmansion-
hell-i...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/06/mcmansion-hell-is-back-
wont-use-zillow-images-anymore-and-zillow-wont-sue/)

~~~
djrogers
Wait, so Zillow agreed to back down but McMansion Hell can't continue their
(clearly legal) fair use of images fro Zillow's site? How is that a win for
anyone but Zillow?

~~~
non_sequitur
Because Zillow is ultimately right here and her use of the images without
Zillow's permission is against their terms of use (which contrary to the hand-
wavy analysis in EFF's letter, is absolutely enforceable). However, Zillow
doesnt have a lot of damages to recover from her use and definitely wants to
avoid another big PR stink, so they get to back off gracefully, she agrees to
stop saying she gets the pictures from Zillow (which is what they really
wanted), and everything goes back to normal.

~~~
dr0verride
Just because Zillow has something in their terms of use that doesn't make it
enforceable.

~~~
non_sequitur
The EFF letter cites a bunch of cases where an arbitration clause was
unenforceable because of the way the terms of service were presented, which
has nothing to do with the current situation (whether a restriction on using
images from Zillow is enforceable). I know it's not fashionable to express
support for a big bad corporate machine over the little guy/gal, but I'm
trying to share some actual information instead of just gush.

~~~
5ilv3r
You're contradicting statements made with sources cited without citing any of
your own, or explaining how they would nullify the other points made on why
this use is acceptable.

~~~
non_sequitur
When lawyers write letters, they will throw everything they can possibly think
of and the kitchen sink, even if it's not relevant. Many of the cites in the
letter are not relevant to this situation (I'm not going through every one,
but just as an example):

The letter says:

"But Wagner is not bound by your Terms of Use and, even if she were, the
relevant provisions are unenforceable. Courts routinely decline to enforce
“browsewrap” agreements like Zillow’s Terms of Use, which fail to present
terms except via a hyperlink and without a checkbox to signal assent. See,
e.g., Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc., 763 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2014); Meyer v.
Kalanick, 199 F. Supp. 3d 752 (S.D. N.Y. 2016); Be In, Inc. v. Google Inc.,
No. 12-CV-03373-LHK, 2013 WL 5568706, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2013); Kwan v.
Clearwire Corp., No. C09-1392JLR, 2012 WL 32380 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 3, 2012)."

Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc., - court declined to apply arbitration clause
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nguyen_v._Barnes_%26_Noble,_In...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nguyen_v._Barnes_%26_Noble,_Inc.))
Meyer v. Kalanick, - court declined to apply arbitration clause
([http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2016/08/judge-
declines-...](http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2016/08/judge-declines-to-
enforce-ubers-terms-of-service-meyer-v-kalanick.htm)) Kwan v. Clearwire Corp.
- court declined to apply arbitration clause
([http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2012/02/kwan_v_clearwir...](http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2012/02/kwan_v_clearwir.htm))
Don't have a link to the Google case, but I would be shocked if it werent the
same issue.

Do you see how the very first paragraph where they start citing has very
little to do with the actual issue? Translation: "Hey Zillow, first of all
your terms of service arent enforceable, see these 4 cases, all of which have
to do with whether an arbitration clause could be applied and have nothing to
do with the current situation."

2nd paragraph: "Even if an agreement were formed, paragraph 14 of the Terms of
Use, asserting Zillow’s right to alter the contract without notice or
justification, would render the agreement illusory and void for lack of
consideration. See, e.g., Cheek v. United Healthcare of Mid-Atl., Inc., 378
Md. 139, 144, 835 A.2d 656, 659 (2003); Interchange Assocs. v. Interchange,
Inc., 16 Wash. App. 359, 362, 557 P.2d 357, 359 (1976)."

Again, nothing to do with the situation at hand

Cheek v. United Healthcare of Mid-Atl., Inc. - arbitration clause in an
employee handbook held unenforceable ([http://www.whaylaw.com/employee-
arbitration-agreement](http://www.whaylaw.com/employee-arbitration-agreement))
Interchange Assocs. v. Interchange, Inc. \- an agreement where directors
agreed to serve 10 years or until they resigned was an "illusory promise" and
did not provide sufficient consideration for a contract
([http://courts.mrsc.org/appellate/016wnapp/016wnapp0359.htm](http://courts.mrsc.org/appellate/016wnapp/016wnapp0359.htm))

Again, neither of these are really relevant to the situation. I'll stop here
but I hope you get the gist of it. Here's what happened - some junior lawyer
at EFF spend 4-5 researching all the cases they thought would be remotely
relevant and threw them in there because hey it looks impressive, but if you
spend some time digging into them the truth quickly becomes apparent.

(I don't work for Zillow or EFF)

~~~
Meekro
The "Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc" decision is absolutely relevant. It's true
that they were arguing about whether an arbitration clause applied, but what's
important is the analysis the court used to determine that it did not. The
distinction between clickwrap agreements (where you click a checkbox to say
you agree) and browsewrap agreements (where you're expected to see some notice
buried in the footer about the terms of service) was critical to the court's
analysis in Nguyen. In the opinion, the court cites a long line of precedents
to show that if a browesewrap agreement is sufficiently well-buried that it
does not put a "reasonably prudent user on inquiry notice of the terms of the
contract" then it does not apply.

You could try to draw a distinction by showing that this particular browsewrap
agreement was more prominently featured than the one at issue in Nguyen, but
you don't get to just hand-wave it away by saying that it was about an
arbitration clause.

~~~
non_sequitur
Flip it around - courts decide not to apply arbitration provisions because it
involves giving up a key right (jury trial), so they find that there was no
meeting of the minds in the TOS given the manner it was presented.
Essentially, if a browsewrap TOS is not presently prominently enough to let
you to make an educated decision on waiving your right to a jury trial, you
get to keep your right to a jury trial.

You dont have this situation when the issue is whether you have the ability to
use a provider's images for non-permitted purposes. Your right to use
someone's images how you like is not nearly as important as your right to a
jury trial. I'm not aware of any case where non-arbitration provisions of a
TOS were not applied due to browsewrap reasons, if you are aware of any I'd
love to see them.

EFF's argument would be totally valid if Zillow was trying to force McMansion
into arbitration. That's not the issue here, and it's misleading to start off
with "your TOS are unenforceable [because courts have declined to apply
arbitration provisions in certain browsewrap TOS contexts]"

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Meekro's point is compelling; to me it doesn't look like you read the
Wikipedia page on that case beyond the "holding".

It's very clear (in everything but the Holding synopsis)) that court sees the
ability for browserwrap to hold over a website visitor is contingent on
affirmative action being required of a website visitor. That makes the
citation more than just pertinent but a knockout if Zillow is arguing that
McMansion Hell were bound by their ToS, and so ...

That said I can't see the court acceding that ToS overrule Fair Use for
reporting/critique/parody/education as that would neuter Fair Use completely.

~~~
non_sequitur
You (and most people in this thread, and discussing this on the Internet) are
confusing 2 completely separate concepts.

Fair use is a COPYRIGHT doctrine. It is part of the US copyright law that
says, creators of a copyright can enforce their rights against people who
misuse their creations, except in certain cases, fair use being one of them.
So if Zillow brings a claim under the US Copyright act, McMansion can assert a
fair use defense. ([https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-
info.html](https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html))

Zillow's terms of service is a CONTRACT. It is separate from whether Zillow
can bring a copyright claim. They could sue for both breach of contract and
copyright infringement. Fair use is a legitimate defense for the copyright
infringement claim (and I agree would likely be successful). It is NOT a
defense for the breach of contract claim. There is no such thing as "TOS
overriding fair use" because they are on separate and distinct tracks.
("However, binding agreements such as contracts or licence agreements may take
precedence over fair use rights.[21]" \-
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use))

As for whether the arbitration cases show that restrictions on use of
proprietary images on browsewrap TOS are enforceable, we'll agree to disagree
- jury trials are a far more important right (as someone below pointed out)
than whether you can use someone's proprietary images for your own purpose. I
find it difficult to believe a judge or jury could (fairly) find that there is
no 'meeting of the minds' on whether you can take and use any images, website
content, code, etc. you feel like from someone's website or online product
under a browsewrap license. It's a significantly different issue than whether
an arbitration clause can be enforced. I would argue that most people know
that 'taking things from other people is bad and not allowed' without
requiring prominent notice on a website about it. But this case will be
litigated, so we'll never know.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>There is no such thing as "TOS overriding fair use" because they are on
separate and distinct tracks. //

I don't know it to be certainly true, if you can cite something solid on the
point I'd be happy: however in general there is such a principle, that certain
rights can't be disclaimed.

Taking a logical approach - and law is not always logical - Fair Use could be
disclaimed, eg in a ToS, then all Media corps would say words to the effect
"this work can't be used under USC's Fair Use legislation" and the democratic
law would then be subverted entirely.

Per your final para, most people do know infringement (no one 'took' anything,
it's a copy) is not allowed [tortuous]. But, Fair Use very rightly allows
copying for parody, reporting, education and similar purposes. They also know
that no matter what you try to claim about not using images of your product,
news and review, parody and education _are still allowed_ (not in all
jurisdictions, however).

The established precedent is n that a browsewrap license needs affirmative
action - checkbox, click-thru/interstitial, etc. - this precedent means
nothing written in the license is pertinent, the viewer isn't party to the
contract.

------
threepipeproblm
Its funny how giant douchebags who are trying to "mitigate their risks" never
seem to perceive the risk of _everyone realizing they are giant douchebags_.

For those who don't know the history of the EFF, it is detailed in Bruce
Sterling's "The Hacker Crackdown" which is available here
[http://www.mit.edu/hacker/hacker.html](http://www.mit.edu/hacker/hacker.html)
and on Amazon. The guy behind Lotus 1-2-3, Mitch Kapor, spent a sizable
portion of his spreadsheet fortune setting it up. The events that Kapor and
other founders were responding to make quite the riveting tale.

~~~
qbrass
>Its funny how giant douchebags who are trying to "mitigate their risks" never
seem to perceive the risk of everyone realizing they are giant douchebags.

The market doesn't really care if you're a giant douchebag so it doesn't
matter to them if everyone finds out.

~~~
multi_tude
Douchebag-driven PR disasters aren't good for biz.

~~~
phamilton
Exhibit A: Uber

~~~
TeMPOraL
That's a great exhibit you can be a total douche company fucking over
everyone, and as long as you don't hit a socially superhot topic (e.g. sexual
harassment), it won't affect you negatively in any way.

------
ncallaway
The EFF presents a fairly strong argument here.

I don't think Zillow had much of a case before, but this certainly makes it
clear that they will not be able to scare McMansion Hell into submission.
Zillow, if they want to achieve an outcome they want, will have to press this
in court where they will likely lose.

Curious to see the response from Zillow here, though I've already created my
Red Fin account and will likely not bother to go back to Zillow.

~~~
lebrad
Except they achieved the outcome that they stated they wanted. EFF says
McMansion Hell won’t use photos from Zillow moving forward.

~~~
dgacmu
She doesn't have to change her old photos. She's just not going to use any
_more_. Which -- well, I can imagine not wanting to have anything to do with
Zillow in the future. Or to give them free advertising by referring to them
for each photo caption. I quite like the idea that her future posts will say
"Images from Redfin, a pretty awesome site that isn't threatening to sue me
for using images for purposes of education, commentary, and parody." :)

But seriously, she won the most important thing: Her entire existing body of
work is going to remain available.

~~~
lebrad
In their original letter, Zillow's first demand was that Kate Wagner confirm
that she has "stopped, and will not in the future, access or otherwise use the
Zillow Site or Images," which she has now done.

Even in the worst case scenario, the internet was going to keep Wagner's
original celebrated body of work available.

I dislike the idea that Zillow's legal goons can now guarantee Zillow's
sellers that their photos won't be subject to mockery by McMansion Hell.

~~~
dgacmu
Zillow's initial demand letter included this:

"(ii) delete all images, and derivatives thereof, in Your possession and on
Your site"

As Kate noted in her twitter feed, the decision to not use them in the future
was hers:

[https://twitter.com/mcmansionhell/status/880517699725668352](https://twitter.com/mcmansionhell/status/880517699725668352)

[https://twitter.com/mcmansionhell/status/880517699725668352](https://twitter.com/mcmansionhell/status/880517699725668352)

The Innertubes may have kept her originals around, but being forced to delete
them would have destroyed the value to her of a year of pretty concerted work
on it. That would have acted as a very strong deterrent to speech.

------
ilamont
I thought this was particularly interesting:

 _Third, Zillow cannot leverage its agreements with third parties to assert
some kind of ‘super copyright’ that overrides fair use. The original copyright
owners could not deny Wagner permission to make fair use of the photographs.
See Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 815 F.3d 1145, 1152 (9th Cir. 2016) (a fair
use is not an infringement of copyright). Zillow, which does not even own the
relevant copyrights, cannot then assert rights that the original copyright
owners could not assert._

If only more platforms, publishers, and creators took this concept to heart.

------
harryh
Some previous discussion on this topic:

1) Zillow's 1st letter to Ms. Wagner:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14639908](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14639908)

2) Commentary on the wrongness of Zillow's 2nd letter to Ms. Wagner:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14656242](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14656242)

------
ChuckMcM
Man I love a good smack down letter :-). This one is typical of the genre, in
terms of content and well executed. I particularly like that they cite the
Righthaven LLC case because a really good letter points out all the scumbags
who have tried to do what you are trying to do and lets the reader know you
think they are scumbags without actually having to call that out directly.

I wonder if they would be interested in writing a letter to the "JustPrintIt
3D" people. (see video
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPnhkQZ9fzM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPnhkQZ9fzM))

------
evan_
The crazy thing about this is that if Zillow had sent a nice email to the
McMansion Hell author and buttered her up a little, maybe offered her some
paid guest blogging opportunities- They probably could have convinced her to
stop using Zillow-sourced photos for a tiny fraction of what they paid their
lawyers (not to mention the damaged brand capitol).

I could imagine a different version of this where they sponsored an
artist/illustrator so she doesn't have to use photos of real houses if that's
what they were worried about. It would have been a great fit for their brand,
a weekly "what to look for in your next house, sponsored by Zillow" feature or
something. Instead they just stuck their finger in their eye for no reason.

~~~
accountyaccount
I'm sure some exec on zillow's marketing team thinks that someone making fun
of some houses will hurt their business. Everyone working for this exec
thought they were stupid for pursuing it, but they don't want to lose their
jobs over it so they just roll their eyes and ignore it.

------
colinbartlett
I just renewed my EFF membership and would encourage others to do so as well.

------
rewrew
So much in here is interesting (and right), but the best part I think comes at
the end: Zillow doesn't own the images. So whether or not you there's a legal
argument for fair use, Zillow has absolutely no right to file a copyright case
in the first place because they don't own the images. As the EFF rightly
points out, there is no "super copyright" that Zillow can exercise here.
Really good stuff overall on fair use, but love that nice whopper at the end.

~~~
pyre
The "super copyright" comment has less to do with their ownership of the
copyright, and more to do with the rest of the context about the owners not
being able to exert copyright claims due to fair use. (This of course is
predicated on the assertion that the usage _does_ fall under fair use.) The
"super copyright" comment is alluding to Zillow attempting to assert something
that even the original owners cannot (i.e. a "superset" of copyright rights).

------
mmanfrin
There is so little differentiating the real estate finding websites that
something like this is enough for me to suggest to my home-searching friends
to use a different service.

~~~
huntermeyer
Zillow Group owns Zillow, Trulia, HotPads, RealEstate.com, and others. What
else is there?

~~~
drewrv
Redfin, whose UI I liked more than Zillows back when I was buying a house.

------
DamnInteresting
I was loving this letter until this part near the end.

> _In the interests of compromise, and because Wagner no longer wishes to use
> Zillow’s website, she will no longer source photographs from Zillow for her
> blog._

What an unnecessary and obnoxious capitulation. Zillow pretty much got what
they wanted by doing what they did. Poppycock.

------
CptJamesCook
Zillow has been threatening small startups for years. Most just go away
quietly. It's good to see people fighting back on their behalf.

~~~
db48x
There is a difference between a business and social commentary/satire. (But
that doesn't mean they're not bullies.)

------
francisofascii
I still don't understand what Zillow hoped to achieve by this. Zillow displays
all types of housing, right? If anything, Kate's site gave Zillow free
advertising.

~~~
clavalle
Some of their clients, realtors, probably complained that their listings were
being used as bad examples and were shown as coming from Zillow.

------
carrier_lost
I had not heard the term "browsewrap" before this but that part is very
interesting in and of itself.

------
twblalock
This is the kind of argumentative writing I used to show my students when they
wrote essays. It doesn't argue against a strawman, but instead demonstrates
that even the most charitable interpretation of the opponent's argument won't
stand up to scrutiny, even if some of the opponent's more contentious premises
are assumed to be true.

For example:

Zillow's terms of use are unenforceable because they are browsewrap
agreements, _but even if Wagner had agreed to the terms of use_ , they would
still be unenforceable because they contain unconscionable clauses in several
different places.

Zillow doesn't hold a copyright to the photos, _but even if they did_ , Wagner
would be protected by a fair use defense.

I have no idea how a judge would rule in this case, but this is definitely
good persuasive writing.

~~~
icebraining
As someone who listened to quite a lot of court cases (did you know that the
Ninth Circuit has a YouTube channel?), it's quite common for judges to ask "if
we rule that your argument X is invalid, do you lose?", giving the opportunity
for lawyers to make that kind of alternative argument.

------
rdtsc
> “may violate” the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)

Oh wow, just saw that. So Zillow is throwing everything at the wall including
"she is hacking us".

Well one good thing is it looks like McMansion Hell's Patreon account will get
bumped up with a few more zeroes at the end. And Zillow just gave her free
advertising and in the process managed to embarrass themselves.

Doesn't anyone there do any kind of risk analysis? Even from their totally
selfish corporate perspective, someone should have said "attacking a fairly
popular blogger and accusing her of CFAA crimes and other crap is probably
going to end up not benefiting us, and may hurt our reputation". It would seem
like a no-brainer...

~~~
ableton
The CFAA is a really, really nasty law. According to some interpretations, you
are breaking it any time you violate the tiny terms of use at the bottom of a
website. So basically anybody could get convicted if the prosecution really
wants to. Somebody got convicted for pretending to be a fictional person on
myspace, but it was overturned (granted, the person was cyberbullying that
resulted in a suicide, but still)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Megan_Meier](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Megan_Meier)

------
misterbowfinger
TIL: there's a list of open source projects for the EFF that anyone can
contribute to

[https://www.eff.org/about/opportunities/volunteer/coding-
wit...](https://www.eff.org/about/opportunities/volunteer/coding-with-eff)

------
RickS
This is a really beautiful legal document. It's concise, readable to someone
not a legal professional, includes ample citations (and sometimes summaries of
cited works), and is convincing using very simple, isolated, well structured
arguments.

If I ever need a lawyer, this is exactly the caliber of document I'd hope they
put out.

------
erroneousfunk
Good points in the EFF letter that all web programmers (or programmers who use
content from the web) should be aware of. The difference between "click wrap"
and "browser wrap" ToS is extremely important, especially with web scraping.

------
seomint
I am grateful for the EFF and the work they do taking on Internet copyright
bullies. Well done.

------
vadym909
Thanks EFF. Should I ever get a threatening letter from a Big Corp, I'm def
going to use this letter as a template to respond and save myself some lawyer
fees.

------
naturalgradient
Curious question: Why does it say CC Christopher Poole at the bottom of the
letter? As in, the founder of 4chan?

~~~
harryh
The author of the original cease and desist from Zillow was a lawyer
coincidentally named Christopher Poole. I wonder how many 4chan jokes he gets?

------
look_lookatme
Does anyone know of any thoughtful writeups that make the case from Zillow's
point of view?

~~~
tcpabc123
If I read things right, the pictures were being used were actually from MLS
sites, and Zillow was using them on their site.

A large goal of the site is to take the different closed off MLS listings and
aggregate them on one site for people to find.

But, working with the MLS sites is extremely hard to do and they require
sometimes large fees and have very strict/weird requirements to use the data.

The big thing with Zillow, is that a problem for them is having access to as
many MLS listings as possible, since most of the realtors use the MLS to post
homes. Without these, its basically just a price estimator and search engine
for homes.

Zillow already has a tenuous relationship with the MLS sites and most likely
pursued the lawsuit to prove to the MLS sites they are serious about the use
of their images, and likely were worried about this affecting their
relationship with some of those listing agencies.

Although only speculation, I see this as more likely than the lawyers just
going after this to be a bully (but they still probably did the wrong thing
either way).

~~~
andybak
MLS?

~~~
icebraining
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_listing_service](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_listing_service)

------
OJFord
I accepted much better. The grammers and spellingses ate not goods.

------
bootsz
Summary:
[https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.158316898.2338/flat,800x800,...](https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.158316898.2338/flat,800x800,070,f.jpg)

------
fwefwwfe
eff.org Offline For Maintenance We're currently offline for server
maintenance. Please check back soon.

2017-06-29

------
rootsudo
Christopher Poole? The 4chan guy?

~~~
dagw
He isn't the only Christopher Poole in the world.

------
thomasjudge
I <3 EFF

------
drivingmenuts
So, this is what it looks like when you stick your metaphorical head into a
buzzsaw ...

------
samgranieri
Thank you EFF!

------
aisofteng
>CC (by email): Christopher Poole

Very interesting - it does make sense that moot would have relationships with
the EFF.

------
Steeeve
> McMansion Hell educates the public about architectural concepts, urban
> planning, environmentalism, and history.

That's simply not true. It's ludicrous.

At the EFF level, this is a complete waste of time. There are more than a few
instances of fair use out there that are defensible and are worthy of
protection efforts. McMansion Hell provides a fraction of the public value
that Perez Hilton does - and like most people I consider his site a black mark
in societies history.

I get that everybody deserves a level of protection, but everybody does not
get it. Resources are thin. EFF should be focusing on more important pursuits.

~~~
morganvachon
> _EFF should be focusing on more important pursuits._

Your opinion of that website has absolutely no bearing on whether EFF should
focus on defending them. This is a clear First Amendment case with digital
rights square in the middle. Zillow is attempting to exert copyright claims
against a blogger when Zillow owns zero copyright on the photos in question.

This case is exactly what EFF is all about, hell it's what their name means.

Don't let your own biases block out common sense.

~~~
Steeeve
This is not a first amendment case at all. Freedom of expression has nothing
to do with the privilege to use images posted on a website.

~~~
icebraining
The SCOTUS disagrees,

 _We have repeatedly rejected First Amendment challenges to injunctions from
copyright infringement on the ground that First Amendment concerns are
protected by and coextensive with the fair use doctrine._

~~~
Steeeve
This is not a copyright issue. Copyright was peripherally mentioned in the C&D
and not the basis of the C&D. Copyright does not belong to Zillow, as they
mentioned themselves directly in the C&D.

