10 Comments
Sep 25·edited Sep 25Liked by Rob Hahn

This is the poster child for why there needs to be real competition between MLSs for brokers to choose from. Not only is this tone deaf, it is flat out wrong and most likely illegal. This is total bullshit. They need to remove their PDAP section immediately. Sadly, the reality for brokerages to move to another MLS is that it is disruptive and time consuming, and can be a significant speed bump -- some MLSs view this as one of their "advantages".

Expand full comment

Rob Im 100% with you. This is something association boards need to look at before they sell to a private entity in this instance (or dare I say private equity in the potential future)

Expand full comment

I'm a little surprised that this is so alarming since the NAR has had a Chain of Ownership Chart and model agreements in place since about 2006 designed to ensure the MLS "owns" all the Intellectual Property uploaded to an MLS compiled database.

REcolorado agreement is a poorly written version of what the NAR has intended for MLS IP policy for years.

for those interested here is the chart and supporting agreement language recommendation from the NAR.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/5wuci1iu86vuj35d756tf/CHAIN-OF-OWNERSHIP-CHART-AND-AGREEMENTS.zip?rlkey=e2ib7j5aa06fx0hhlnjp81ftl&st=sipfyqah&dl=0

Expand full comment
author
Sep 26·edited Sep 26Author

I can only disagree. The relevant section from the papers you've included is this:

--

3. License to IDX Listings

Upon the receipt of a written request from Participant, in a form acceptable to MLS, and so long as Participant, the applicable Sales Licensee, and/or an applicable Vendor are not in default under this Agreement, the Rules and Regulations or any agreement with MLS, MLS will grant to Participant, the applicable Sales Licensee of Participant, or the applicable Vendor a license to the IDX Listings. The license will only be granted pursuant to a License Agreement. MLS has no obligation to grant a license to Participant, any Sales Licensee, or any Vendor which does not enter into a License Agreement. In addition to any applicable license fee payable by Participant, the Sales Licensee, and/or the Vendor, Participant shall pay to MLS all costs and expenses incurred by MLS in connection with any licenses and any services provided by MLS in connection with such licenses.

--

There is an ocean of difference between IDX and PDAP. That isn't merely poorly written; it is poorly thought through.

Critically, IDX includes the listings of OTHER brokers, to which you have no rights. PDAP is only your own listings, to which you have every right as the owner.

Expand full comment
Sep 26·edited Sep 26Liked by Rob Hahn

Rob, I agree with your assessment relative to the PDAP.

What I am attempting, apparently not too clearly, point out is that the NAR and MLS have been demanding that IP content creators for a listing grant all rights to the MLS. They are then using IDX to make the IP available to unlicensed parties for a fee, without consideration to the IP creators.

The PDAP license requirement in this participant agreement is just a farther over reach to collect money.

The parts of a listing that the US Copyright Office consider Intellectual Property are the visual media — photographs, videography and 3D tours. The NAR and MLS have required a participant and subscriber to grant them all rights when uploading the listing.

The PDAP, as I understand it from your blog is a way for a brokerage to gain access to its listings once they are uploaded to the MLS. That the contract drafter of this Participant Agreement is asking for the brokerage/participant to sign a license agreement to gain access suggests that they are presuming that the entire complied database is IP owned by the MLS and that granting the brokerage/participant to it's portion of the compiled database licensable IP they own. Even though the MLS has created none of the IP — just compiling the database which the USCO does consider copyrightable as a compilation.

Bottomline, for me, the REcolorado agreement is just the latest example of the NAR and MLS attempt to usurp IP without recognizing its ownership and value to the owner.

Expand full comment
author

Gotcha! Then I'm in full agreement.

I know why MLS tends to require licenses to all the IP, and why MLS requires reps and warranties from brokers who upload data to the MLS, but over time, it's been getting worse and worse.

I think the MLS should rethink its role in the real estate data game. More coming on that soon. :)

Expand full comment
Sep 27·edited Sep 27

I've done a lot of research for some clients interested in changing the status quo.

One motivation for MLS changing their approach is the cost of losing infringement lawsuits. Which they seem to do at least 90% of the time.

Considering the increased activity in the RE portal wars -- Zillow and CoStar most recently. Both acquiring production and platform resources to increase their competitiveness in the past year or so.

One reasonable projection is that the MLS is becoming irrelevant. Which probably is one reason for the attempt by REcolorado to lock in as much recurring revenue as possible.

As a media creator for real estate I've been paying attention to this for quite awhile. Would it be worth a chat over coffee while I'm in LV Nov. 11-15?

Expand full comment

Is it possible this is an uneducated blunder by a company that's new to the MLS world?

Expand full comment
author

I suppose. We will see if they revise this Agreement shortly. If they do, it's a blunder. If they don't, it is not.

Expand full comment

My brokerage is in the metro Atlanta Georgia area. We have two overlapping and competing MLS so I am hopeful that both or at least one of them will not come up with such an idiotic plan as the one in Denver.

Expand full comment