I totally understand the whole "McMansions are bad architecture" thing...<p>However, something about it really bothers me. There was an episode of 99% Invisible where the guest was talking about their McMansions blog and how it makes fun of these Horrid dwellings. The whole thing stank of classist elitism. The Wrong Type of people were getting the chance to design and build large houses, and of course they're applying their Bad Taste that's neither Genuine nor Authentic. They don't know about the traditions of Fine Architecture so of course they were doing it all wrong...how embarrassing for them!<p>Edit: It sounds like a lot of the way I interpreted this could come from my background as someone who's transitioned from lower working class to solidly middle class, and so I'm applying that defensively even though (thank God!) I don't live in an Embarassing McMansion. In fact I'm now considering the blog as more of an educational campaign where an expert in the field is railing against problematic and widespread trends in that field. It has less to do with transitions between class and more to do with the decline of an important field of engineering and design as something that people value. I think the word McMansions itself is a bit of a disservice to the purpose of the blog, with its "slobs vs snobs" / Beverly Hillbillies connotations.
The Washington Post ran an article/video combo today[1] about Kate and McMansion Hell, and while Kate herself didn't mention Zillow the article itself did a few times. I imagine this is what prompted the legal threat. It's an entertaining video if you have five minutes.<p>Also of note: Kate's twitter posts from this morning also indicate she has received threatening emails following the video[2], which is sadly not surprising.<p>1: <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/26/the-ultimate-symbol-of-the-pre-recession-boom-is-back" rel="nofollow">https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/26/the-u...</a><p>2: <a href="https://twitter.com/mcmansionhell/status/879422526698532865" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/mcmansionhell/status/879422526698532865</a>
IANAL but we can do some harmless armchair lawyering...<p>The 4 Factors of "fair use"[1]:<p><i>>1. the purpose and character of your use.</i><p>Criticism, critique.<p><i>>2. the nature of the copyrighted work.</i><p>Published photos used in website blog without ads. Also, the photos were not put into a compilation book to be sold at Amazon. However, Kate Wagner does say in twitter that <i>"this blog is my entire livelihood"</i> so it seems that some commercial activity is happening.<p><i>>3. the amount and substantiality of the portion taken</i><p>Kate Wagner took a tiny percentage in proportion to Zillow's entire photo database. If the proportion measurement is a particular photographer's portfolio, she may have taken most or 100%.<p><i>>4. the effect of the use upon the potential market.</i><p>Does KW's usage of the photos cause economic harm to the photographers of real estate? Do the McHell photos reduce the value of photographers' other photos in their portfolio?<p>Doesn't seem so but there may be some additional cause & effect that damages photographers' works.<p>Seems like (3) and (4) would be Zillow's strongest arguments.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=4+factors+of+fair+use" rel="nofollow">https://www.google.com/search?q=4+factors+of+fair+use</a>
Funny. One of the homes they showed is in my area, and I had driven by it recently (since we're thinking about moving). And they're definitely right. It's a weird mix of horribleness. Especially the kitchen with its "update", aka let's throw in a couple of premium appliances and $2k worth of marble and call it a day.<p><a href="http://www.mcmansionhell.com/post/162143229176/50-states-of-mcmansion-hell-hennepin-county" rel="nofollow">http://www.mcmansionhell.com/post/162143229176/50-states-of-...</a><p><a href="https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/19735-Chartwell-Hl-Excelsior-MN-55331/2024299_zpid/" rel="nofollow">https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/19735-Chartwell-Hl-Excels...</a>
On what grounds can they sue? Isn't this pure free speech?<p>It looks like the only references to Zillow ever are citations that the photos come from their website <a href="http://www.mcmansionhell.com/search/zillow" rel="nofollow">http://www.mcmansionhell.com/search/zillow</a>
For those who had never heard of it before, the Google cached copy is still up:<p><a href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zFONMlsRjcgJ:www.mcmansionhell.com/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" rel="nofollow">http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zFONMls...</a>
If you're looking to read the article you can go to <a href="http://mcmansionhell.tumblr.com/" rel="nofollow">http://mcmansionhell.tumblr.com/</a> - it has been unlinked from the domain name.
Welp, you guys know what to do.<p><a href="http://archive.is/" rel="nofollow">http://archive.is/</a><p><a href="https://web.archive.org/" rel="nofollow">https://web.archive.org/</a><p><a href="https://www.webcitation.org/archive" rel="nofollow">https://www.webcitation.org/archive</a><p>Edit: the blog just disappeared for me. I managed to archive the last 13 pages of it in archive.is.
Zillow may be being feeling pressure to enforce photograph copyright because of this lawsuit: <a href="http://realtormag.realtor.org/daily-news/2017/02/13/zillow-ordered-pay-83m-in-copyright-case" rel="nofollow">http://realtormag.realtor.org/daily-news/2017/02/13/zillow-o...</a>
She might want to double check with Zillow. The Cease and Desist is signed 'Christopher Poole', which happens to be the real name of Moot of 4chan fame?
I would expect nothing short of this from Zillow.<p>I'm also not really certain that Zillow has the copyright: those are usually property of the RETS/MLS of that specific area, if not the agent taking the pictures.
I don't know the full context of what is going on legally, but I do know that being threatened is not the same thing as getting sued. And getting sued is not the same thing as them having a case. And them having a case is not the same thing as you not having a defense.<p>Lawyers exist for a reason. Don't let other lawyers bully you with threats. Get your own lawyer to look into things. Back down if it makes sense. Sometimes it does. But don't back down just because you get threatened.
IANAL.<p>We give large companies far too much lenience to bully in this country.<p>The legal system is fundamentally broken in this type of matchup, a small player pitted against a public company with billions of dollars floating around. Her only hope to win the fight is to be picked up by a nonprofit like the EFF, but my experience is that they're very restrained about where they'll lend assistance (that is, they're useless to most people).<p>Her only hope to get through the next five years without having her life substantially wrecked by a totally unnecessary lawsuit (which she will likely lose if it goes to court) is to comply with the C&D and hope that Zillow calls off the dogs.<p>Her brief plea for help at the end of this post could be construed as an attempt to conspire to continue to harm Zillow while avoiding legal accountability for doing so, and Zillow's attorneys will no doubt seize upon that construction to make things as bad for her as possible.<p>The thing to understand is that once lawyers are contacted, the time for friendly discussion or rational pleading is over. The lawyer is paid to get the court to believe that their client is being seriously harmed so that they are granted maximal damages. Conciliatory tones and forgone possibilities to highlight damage would only hurt Zillow in an eventual court case, so the lawyers must seize upon such communications aggressively. Their sole job is to make the case that Zillow is being victimized as credible as possible, which means making the defendant look as bad as possible.<p>We <i>seriously</i> need to get the legal system under control. An individual is lucky if they can afford 10 hours of time from a competent attorney. Large companies intentionally prolong their cases to try and starve less-wealthy opponents out by exhausting their legal funds. I am familiar with small companies who were forced to settle, even after spending $3M on legal services.<p>It takes up to a decade and millions of dollars to even have such a case seen through in the US.<p>IANAL.<p>Source: I've had a giant law firm sicked on me by a Fortune 100. I complied with their C&D (by shutting down my business) and they went away.
So this made things even more difficult for me. I'm looking to buy a new house for around 300-500K. And I'd hate for it to be one of these, I don't need it to be some unique hipster snowflake because I need it to be marketable and sell well in the Midwest so most families are buying pretty standard craftsman style houses. Not the Silicon Valley entire house is a massive window. Main concern is getting money back or more and not doing some massive risk which is what this blog might be advocating.
I really don't understand how this doesn't fall under fair use. The images are quite clearly being used for criticism and satire which is protected speech.<p>Is this just a case of the power of the almighty $$$ or is there something I'm missing?
Seems like a subscription to a national MLS service would allow her access to all the same images with none of the copyright claims Zillow wants to make.
This site seems like Class elitism and smells of Class warfare. It seems quite bitter too.<p>A few of her architectural points are correct: a missing column here or there, perhaps some matching windows. But, most of her commentary is reaching and snarky. She might have fared much better if she put a positive spin on it and told people how to improve there architecture rather than picking apart every minor flaw, to which otherwise would be a great mcMansion.<p>I found most of the houses and pictures shown on there quite good looking. I would be really lucky to live in anything posted on there. I don't think she's seen bad looking architecture yet. Obviously, she's never looked at housing in CA.<p>And criticizing a house for having too small a lot - that's just really low. That's like criticizing a poor kid for not having any money. People don't get to chose the cost of land in their area. It's decided upon by voters and government. If she has a problem with lot sizes, she ought to blame voters not the house.
I like both mcmansionhell.com AND my mcMansion. Weirdly, she calls out fake shutters that won't actually close over the windows, but my 1954 built, 1300sq ft previous house had those as well!
To be fair, zillow itself was sued(and lost) recently for its user base uploading images they have no copyright to. I know the case is different here, but it's very likely Zillow is just being overly cautious here.
Large houses are terrible for humans, using more energy, taking up more space, therefore causing more travel, more car usage. I'm impressive by the millionaire whose house is small and efficient.
mcmansionhell's use is clearly fair use as it falls under both the criticism and parody exceptions. This might be why the Zillow SLAPP letter mainly focuses on supposed TOS violations. Whether unsigned web site TOS off on a page most visitors never see are enforceable at all is highly questionable.
I swear, if I were part of the three comma club I would have a very well-funded non-profit legal firm that would jump at the opportunity to take on cases like this.
It would be nice to see what communication Zillow sent to McMansion Hell in order to both corroborate the claim and to see what law Zillow is invoking that Zillow would use in a potential lawsuit [0].<p>[0] <a href="https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/corroborate" rel="nofollow">https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/corroborate</a>
This brings to mind Nina Paley's "Copyright is Brain Damage":<p><a href="https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XO9FKQAxWZc" rel="nofollow">https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XO9FKQAxWZc</a><p>Paley is in the process of creating an epic animated story, using music appropriated with out rights, as a protest piece against copyright.<p>She addresses the question somewhat at her blog:
<a href="http://blog.ninapaley.com/?s=copyright+is+brain+damage&submit.x=0&submit.y=0&submit=Search" rel="nofollow">http://blog.ninapaley.com/?s=copyright+is+brain+damage&submi...</a><p>If you're looking for a transcript, I'm not aware of one, though Techdirt addresses some of the points raised:<p><a href="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151022/23582332603/nina-paley-argues-why-copyright-is-brain-damage.shtml" rel="nofollow">https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151022/23582332603/nina-...</a>
Here is a podcast she did in 2016 with James Howard Kunstler. <a href="http://kunstler.com/podcast/chatting-kate-wagner-mcmansion-hell-dot-com/" rel="nofollow">http://kunstler.com/podcast/chatting-kate-wagner-mcmansion-h...</a>
Website administrators: Please do not disable everything <i>except</i> google bot in your robots.txt [0][1] - this is a terrible practice making our internet worse.<p>[0] <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.mcmansionhell.com/post/162288302421/going-offline-for-a-while" rel="nofollow">https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.mcmansionhell.com/p...</a><p>[1] <a href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:AXKs99gQJSsJ:www.mcmansionhell.com/post/162288302421/going-offline-for-a-while+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk" rel="nofollow">https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:AXKs99...</a>
This is a real shame. McMansion Hell was one of my favorite sites, and one of the few that I would repeatedly check for updates.<p>IANAL, but her case seems cut-and-dry by fair use standards. I hope that she fights it and seeks the help of her (very appreciative) readers in fighting it.
I kinda figured this was coming sooner or later. McMansion Hell is using unquestionably copyrighted photos, but claims that they fall under Fair Use. I <i>think</i> that's true (but IANAL), but fair use is an affirmative defense that has to hold up in court.
Wow Zillow, way to protect that valuable IP! If I were an employee there I would wonder why legal wasn't working on something more useful.<p>Is there any open repository of house images (OpenStreetMaps, etc.) that could be used as a substitute in the interim?
For those of you that enjoyed the site, you might enjoy this one as well. It was the first thing I thought of when reading the description of the McMansion Hell website:<p><a href="http://blog.buildllc.com/2010/04/couch-cushion-architecture-a-critical-analysis/" rel="nofollow">http://blog.buildllc.com/2010/04/couch-cushion-architecture-...</a>
Switch all Zillow pics to Google Streetview. I doubt they will sue because Google doesn't care if you criticize random houses that they aren't selling. TOS:
<a href="https://www.google.com/permissions/geoguidelines.html#streetview" rel="nofollow">https://www.google.com/permissions/geoguidelines.html#street...</a>
Mirror of the site: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20170626201934/http://www.mcmansionhell.com/" rel="nofollow">https://web.archive.org/web/20170626201934/http://www.mcmans...</a>
1) Aren't the images used as part of a critique? Isn't that classic fair use?<p>2) I was under the impression nearly all of the photos on Zillow come from MLS anyway.
This is what happens when you scratch big dogs.<p>As an architect, I take my hat to whistleblowing construction businesses that profit mostly on layman's ignorance.
I'm never in favor of any speech being censored (especially fair use speech), including in this case.<p>But as someone who wants to one day buy a huge McMansion in Vegas just for personal gratification, fuck all of these self-righteous snobs.
A status update on Twitter:<p><a href="https://twitter.com/mcmansionhell/status/879483071988367360" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/mcmansionhell/status/879483071988367360</a>
Never heard of McMansion Hell before, but went back and checked it out on Google Cache and it just seems mean spirited. Why should anyone care what sort of house people choose to build, buy or live in? Reminds me of the people that couldn't handle an old lady's earnest Olive Garden review a few years back.<p><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ann-brenoff/olive-garden-reviewer-is-media-star_b_1334736.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ann-brenoff/olive-garden-revie...</a>
So I don't get it. This girl sounds really, really petty, and the 99pi episode is probably their worst. So what if someone wants to build a huge house? How is that harming anyone else? If I were wealthy I would totally build a McMansion because I want it, I like it, and I would love to live in it. Who cares?
I really dislike this blog. Their rules are just subjective opinions and completely arbitrary. They don't give any arguments or reasoning to support them. When they do the side by side comparisons with traditional architecture, I usually prefer the McMansions. They just look cooler. I like that they aren't perfectly symmetrical and simple.<p>Much of their advice could actually be harmful. E.g. reducing the number of windows to make it fit into their desired style. Windows have been shown to be very beneficial to mental health. E.g. hospital patients in a room with a window recover earlier, depressed people improve a bit when they can see trees, bright sunlight is hugely important in establishing the circadian rhythm, etc.<p>Or the demands for the houses to be perfectly symmetrical and "balanced" is very constraining. It eliminates 99% of design space. There are otherwise more optimal designs that must be discarded because they don't meet that constraint. A room must arbitrarily become so much bigger or smaller, or eliminated entirely, to satisfy it.<p>And the same is true for all of the rules. They are all purely aesthetic constraints.