Zillow Group, parent company of the well-known house-hunting site, was ordered to pay more than $8.2 million in damages to real estate photography company VHT after using thousands of its photos without proper permission.
Zillow said it plans to seek to overturn the verdict, which affects photographs on Zillow Digs, its home design ideas site.
Rosemont-based VHT, which does business as VHT Studios, filed the lawsuit against Zillow in U.S. District Court in the Western District of Washington in July 2015, alleging "massive and intentional infringement of copyrights."
A jury last week sided with VHT, finding that Seattle-based Zillow "directly infringed" on 28,125 photos, and awarded VHT $8.2 million in statutory damages, according to court documents. For other photos not included in the statutory damages, VHT chose to be awarded more than $25,000 in actual damages.
"We never had any agreement with Zillow," said VHT co-founder and CEO Brian Balduf on Monday.
Though a judge dismissed claims related to copyright infringement outside of Zillow Digs, Zillow maintains the suit lacks merit, spokeswoman Amanda Woolley said in an emailed statement. "While we are pleased that the majority of original claims were dismissed in this case, we regret that the jury did not find for us completely on those that remained, and will vigorously pursue all options to overturn their verdict," she said.
When VHT launched in the late 1990s, house hunting consisted mainly of scouring black and white exterior shots and contacting agents for more information, Balduf said. Today, listing information is widely available online, as are detailed property photos. (The Tribune has an agreement with VHT to use its photos.)
"What people don't realize is that photographs are different than listing information," Balduf said. "Photographs are actually intellectual property that are protected by copyright laws. You can't treat it the same."
Copyright infringement cases have become more common with the proliferation of the internet into nearly every sector, and most people understand they can't just "go to a website and rip off an image," said Phil Nicolosi, a Rockford-based attorney who focuses on business and e-commerce law.
But things get murkier when third parties are involved.
"You either own your creative work or you don't," he said. "And when you don't, you can have a license that can be very limited."
amarotti@chicagotribune.com
Twitter @AllyMarotti
Our editors found this article on this site using Google and regenerated it for our readers.
