While there are numerous ways for a broker to legally obtain another broker’s property listings, she is often restricted on what she can do with the information. A broker may be subject to a number of public laws and private contracts based on which organizations she belongs to and which licenses she has obtained. If a broker is a licensed real estate agent, she is bound by state real estate license law. If a broker is a REALTOR®, i.e. she is a member of the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR), she is bound by the NAR Code of Ethics. If a broker participates in a multiple listing service (MLS), she is bound by the MLS’s rules. And finally, a broker may be bound by federal copyright law if the broker is distributing information that is protected under copyright. A broker may fit all, some, or none of the above categories.
In general, state real estate law, the NAR Code of Ethics, and many MLS’s rules prohibit any advertising property listing information without the consent or authorization of the listing broker. Copyright law prohibits reproduction of copyright-protected works (like listing photos) without the permission of the creator of the works. Therefore, are Facebook posts considered advertising? And if so, is there some type of consent or authorization expressly or impliedly contained within an MLS’s rules?
Advertising
In relation to real estate, the definition of advertising varies, but is generally considered to be any communication between a broker and the public. This communication is often interpreted liberally to include distribution of information in any medium, such as electronic, print, radio, television, etc. Posting information on Facebook would likely be considered a type of communication between a broker and the public. However, other factors may alter this conclusion. Facebook has many levels of privacy settings that can limit the viewing audience. Further, the form of the listing information posted can range from merely a hyperlink to another website, to a complete package of information about the property. These details add complexity to the analysis and should be reviewed in relation to the specific jurisdiction.For example, if a broker posts a listing on her Facebook page, and that page is available to all Facebook users or to all of the broker’s Facebook friends, chances are she is advertising the listing. If on the other hand the page is available only to a small group of her friends, perhaps consisting of clients looking for real estate in the neighborhood in which the listing lies, she might just be delivering listing information in the context of a brokerage relationship. But under the laws of some states, it may still be considered advertising.
We might also ask where the advertising is actually happening: If a broker posts only a link on her Facebook page that leads back to the display of the listing on her IDX web site, has she advertised the listing. IDX is unquestionably advertising, but is putting the link on Facebook to the IDX site a separate act of advertising?
Of course, even if a Facebook post is considered advertising, it still could be acceptable if the broker has the proper authorization or consent.
Permission
Each set of MLS rules is unique, but many MLSs use the NAR Model Rules as a guide. The Model Rules Section 2.7 state that advertising of another broker’s listing is prohibited without prior consent. However, three other sections within the Model Rules authorize a limited license for use of the MLS’s data compilation. First, Section 12 of the Model Rules authorizes reproduction of portions of an MLS’s compilation under certain restrictions. Second, Section 18 authorizes data display through Internet Data Exchange (IDX). Third, Section 19 authorizes data display through a Virtual Office Website (VOW).Section 12, Reproduction: Depending on the MLS’s rules, a broker may be able to reproduce a reasonable number of single copies of property listing data to prospective purchasers. In the context of Facebook, a general post to the public will likely violate this rule. Again, using restrictive privacy settings or posting only a hyperlink to another site where display is authorized may be an appropriate mechanism to satisfy this provision.
Section 18, IDX: To qualify as a display under the IDX rules, a web site must belong to a broker participating in MLS, and it must satisfy various display requirements. Facebook is a website that is not owned or operated by the IDX participating broker. The display of Facebook is also likely to fail to satisfy the requirements of the IDX rules regarding display. If Facebook does not qualify as an acceptable website platform for the dissemination of IDX data, then there is no authorization provided by this section to share other broker’s property listings. Therefore, Section 18 will probably not grant necessary authorization (though local rules might vary).
Section 19, VOW: Similar to the IDX provisions of Section 18, the VOW provisions authorize data transfer for websites that satisfy a number of requirements. However, the VOW provisions are typically even stricter than the IDX provisions. For example, before a consumer can access the information on a VOW, the broker must establish a broker-consumer relationship, as defined by state law. Typically this involves affirmative assent to the relationship by both parties, and the consumer must agree to certain terms and conditions of use when utilizing the website. Facebook does not require assent to necessary terms and conditions as defined by the Model Rules, though it does have terms of use to protect Facebook’s interests. Therefore, it is unlikely that Facebook will satisfy all the requirements of the VOW rules. If Facebook does not qualify as an acceptable VOW, then there is no authorization provided by this section to share other broker’s property listings. Therefore Section 19 will probably not grant to necessary authorization (though local rules may vary).
Summary
While Facebook may be a very fast and efficient way to distribute property listing information, brokers should be wary of potential problems arising from these actions. It is not only the MLS rules that they may violate, but also state real estate license law, the NAR Code of Ethics, and even Copyright Act. Without the proper permission, a broker cannot advertise another broker’s property information. This permission may be contained within a given MLS’s rules, but careful examination of the rules and the state laws is required to make this determination. If a broker wants to promote other brokers’ listing on her Facebook page, she will be safer if (1) she displays only a link on her Facebook page back to the listing on her IDX site; and (2) she displays the post on her Facebook page only to her Facebook friends who are clients likely interested in the property in question.What do you think? Should the MLS rules make it easier for one broker to post another broker's listings on Facebook? Should the rules clarify that it is NOT permitted? Are things fine the way they are? I'd like to hear from you.
-Brian
10 comments:
I agree wholeheartedly with the general conclusion that advertising another broker's listing via Facebook wouldn't be allowed. This is clearly advertising, and it would be extremely difficult to comply with all the specific IDX rules through Facebook.
But I do have a quibble with one particular point. You state that to qualify under the IDX rules "a web site must belong to a broker participating in MLS" and that "Facebook is a website that is not owned or operated by the IDX participating broker."
The IDX rules state that listings may be displayed by brokers or agents through "their websites" - I don't believe it sets specific limits on what control the broker/agent has over the website. I'd imagine that there are a fair number of agents (or even brokers) who don't own "their websites" because they're provided as subpages or subdomains of a brokerage or franchise, or because they're subdomains of a blog or website provider. For example, if my brokerage site is http://Brokerage.FranchiseX.com, the broker probably doesn't own the site and can only operate it according to the rules established by the franchise.
As a Facebook user I don't claim to control Facebook, but I do have a specific set of pages within the service that are "mine," and it seems that if there were a way to conform to the IDX display rules it should be permissible to put the IDX listings there.
Great post Brian! Thank you for your insight.
Great post.
I like that you found the distinction between a public Facebook profile and a private one. If one's profile is public, then it becomes the same as advertising every broker's listings on Craigslist, which is clearly not allowed. The argument that one might "own" the Facebook page doesn't hold up because then you could open up 10-50 Facebook, Myspace, blogger etc accounts and feed the MLS. This would not be acceptable.
One group in our area tried to feed the MLS data to their ActiveRain blog, with a link back to their IDX, for the sole purpose of SEO rankings and traffic. This was shut down.
If a facebook profile is private, and by invite only, and has 100 customers or even friends, then it would be fine to post other broker's listings. It would be the same as emailing 100 friends about a great deal that you found.
The borderline issue would be whether somebody with a private facebook account had 1000 "friends". Whether that would become "public" per se. I maintain it does not. If people signed up to be a friend, it would be the same as 10,000 people wanting email alerts for new listings.
A similar issue is posting to Twitter. The same rules should apply. If it is a public account, it should not be allowed. But if you have a nonpublic twitter account called @1000ForeclosuresOnTheMLS, and somebody signed up, they should be allowed to privately see a feed of foreclosures on the MLS.
I disagree with any distinction between a full listing and a link back to a specific listing in one's IDX. (an open twitter account feeding the mls, would be just a bunch of links) If you were to go to craigslist and put in the subject line "5 Killer deals, click here" and then the advertisement had 5 links to 5 specific properties, that would be advertising somebody else's listings.
But it would be ok to put a link to "all foreclosures in Mclean" and then it launch your website with several listings in Mclean. The difference is you can't specifically point out a particular listing.
Thanks for bringing up the topic. These tiny nuances are hard to explain to newcomers.
Frank
Broker FranklyRealty.com
Owner FranklyMLS.com
Ownership of the website is defined in our rules as: owning the second and third level domains. This is a reasonably specific definition and would question the ownership qualification for most social media web pages.
Thanks Brian, comprehensive! I think this is an important topic. On the issue of private posting vs public posting on Facebook I think there is a higher bar required in the rules than just being a friend on Facebook to be able to send or post data for that persons use. Even when you use the example of getting market updates via an MLS or IDX web tool that relationship is still one to one and not one to many. Unless the Facebook post is one to one I think it is outside the intent of the broker agreement to share data via IDX for the other brokers communication with their clients/customers.
My principal concern is with the perception of the marketing. With Facebook, it would be very difficult for the advertised property to be displayed with the listing agent’s information present. Therefore, the general public would assume that the property is listed with the agent displaying the property on their Facebook page. I would not want all of my listings displayed on another agent’s page (or website) without giving listing credit to me. This presents a false perception in the eye of the public.
Recently I read a great article about the differences in the MLS when data was collected and published in books versus the MLS where data is aggregated onto servers and distributed to brokers via internet/computers. Once this happened, we started to see a change in how agents perceived the MLS. There are large movements within many MLS’ to allow the MLS to be a vehicle for marketing/advertising properties instead of a large database. This change is forcing us to consider large alterations in MLS rules. Our MLS had discussions about brokers giving permission, through the MLS, for other brokers to advertise listings on their websites (or similar sites), without having to ask permission each time. This is similar to IDX, but it would stretch further and allow listing to be displayed in other ways. The linchpin would be that the displaying/advertising broker would have to give credit to the listing agent on each listing.
I think that brokers should only display/advertise their listings, unless permission has been granted. So, I do not think that advertising other agent’s listings on Facebook is a good (or ethical) thing for agents.
Several comments touched on variations in MLS enforcement; they arise from the inevitable need to interpret the language in the model rules. Here are some further thoughts.
@Hank:
You wrote: “The IDX rules state that listings may be displayed by brokers or agents through ‘their websites’ - I don't believe it sets specific limits on what control the broker/agent has over the website.” You then noted that brokers may not own their domain names.
Actually, MLSs use different indicia to determine whether an IDX website belongs to a broker. Some require that the broker own the domain at which the site is hosted. Some require that the broker have at least contractual control of that domain name. Others focus on the apparent branding of the site. Some are concerned with a combination of factors.
There is lack of agreement on what exactly a ‘web site’ is: is the page that you (sort-of) control on Facebook YOUR web site? I think most MLSs would (reasonably) say ‘no.’ But MLSs may say ‘yes.’ Check with your local MLS.
@Duane:
Technically, there is no requirement in the MLS rules that permits only one-to-one communications under Section 12. I think if the displaying broker can make a colorable argument that the recipients of a given communication are all buyers who are likely to be interested in the listing displayed, many MLSs would determine that the requirements of Section 12 have been met.
@Marc:
Note that in some states, the listing broker must be identified as a matter of state license law; so your your concern is not just a listing-broker one.
Sounds like your MLS considered a creative solution: Create a program a little like IDX, but different, that permits listing brokers to consent to other brokers displaying their listings in certain forums, presumably in return for receiving the same permission. “You can show my listings on Facebook if I can show yours, subject to the following restrictions.” COOL. Has anyone adopted this approach, I wonder?
@Frank:
I understand your reluctance to separate the notions of displaying actual listing data and displaying a link back to an authorized IDX site. Nevertheless, there are differences between the two acts that might well be meaningful for many MLSs. I think it’s a discussion your MLS rules-making/enforcement should have.
Thanks, all, for the great comments!
-Brian
MLSs need to get ahead of this and offer a solution that abides by local rules and regulations.
Facebook is a new form of internet - it is used nearly as much as the rest of the net.
Check out the offering by MRED in Chicago - contact Jeff Lasky. They built a solution that is rules compliant.
I have no problem with an agent or broker using the IDX or link to MLS to allow potential client to view multiple listing.. But when i spend the time to address the "do not grant other to advertise" and still see my posts and numerous ones of the same listing from the same broker on Craigslist.. another animal in itself.. it drive me batty.. That is a public site ..
Post a Comment