A fellow surveyor's Wife has just finished up her RE Brokers education and while attending what I assume was the MLS orientation, the brokers were encouraged to submit any plats they got their hands on to be included in a database that would ostensibly be available to members of the MLS for use by their clients.
He is going to write a letter to our Board's legal counsel.
Do you all have any comments?
Explain that the plat is an opinion of the boundaries and improvements thereon as of
a time, as is an appraisal for value is as of a time.
"The land stays the same, the matters that affect the land change" ....DGG
Good luck !
Cheers
Derek
Doesn't make any sense to me. If they have a listing they are about to go with, simply send one of their minions down to the court house and pull the plat themselves. Sounds like the database managers are lazy and will depend on brokers to gather info.
I would think most potential broker clients are more interested in the domicile - sq. ft., bedrooms, house style, etc. As a former buyer I mostly just cared about acreage. The only I really cared about the boundaries and such was when I was going to buy some undeveloped land.
To clarify, I think what the MLS is trying to do is build a database of individual lot surveys prepared for loan closings, not record plats of subdivisions. These could then be passed onto subsequent buyers (with an affidavit of no change?) for years.
NC is not a recording state.
That is exactly what they are doing. And they are also trying to use your stuff without paying for it. Sounds to me that y'all have a pretty clear cut case of theft of service, copyright infringement, and fraud just to mention a few. Hopefully the NC Board will have the teeth to take them to task. At the very least, the local society should sue for a cease and desist order, actual and punitive damages, if you can prove that they used one survey without paying that surveyor and he is a part of the suit, then you have willful negligence and should get punitive against the MLS.
It might help to state on your surveys that it is certified only to the persons named on it. At least it limits your liability.
Also sue for a violation of DMCA. They are circumventing anti copying methods (your seal on the survey) to make copies as they want to and disseminating same without your approval, thereby using your intellectual property without permission.
Basically bury them under legal action until the real estate agents cry uncle.
Hit them with a takedown notice. If they do not takedown, then MLS will be held liable under DMCA if the survey is found to be a copyrighted work. And they would then be on the hook for punative measures. DMCA could be your friend, it is very hard to fight against it.
I remember it's not a recording state.
However, try to get a mortgage loan without a survey of record.
They wouldn't let me.
Copyright Surveyor's Plans
(In OZ for our Angliophobe Hon. Member from Green Bay 😀 )
DGG
Copyright Agency Limited v State of NSW
by admin — last modified 2008-11-11 07:32
In a joint judgment delivered on 6 August 2008, the High Court allowed an appeal relating to government use of surveyors’ plans.
The State of NSW uses survey plans lodged with Land and Property Information (LPI), a government agency, for a variety of purposes, including sale to members of the public and sale via information brokers. Copyright Agency Limited (CAL) had argued, on behalf of the surveyors, that the use of the plans was subject to a remunerated statutory licence, not a free implied licence as the State contended.
The Federal Court had held that the State of NSW’s use of surveyors’ plans was for the services of the State, within the meaning of s 183 of the Copyright Act. But it said that the State had an implied licence to use the plans and was therefore not obliged to pay equitable remuneration as required by s 183. The Federal Court held that the surveyors “must be taken to have licensed and authorised the doing of the very acts that the surveyor was intending should be done as a consequence of the lodgment of the [plans] for registration”.
The High Court held that there was no implied licence relating to the “public” use of the plans, either in the surveyors’ contracts with their clients or independently of these contracts. The Court’s reasons included that there was no necessity to imply such a licence, and that the State charged for copies supplied.
The State of NSW did not appeal the Federal Court’s finding that it did not own copyright in the plans. The Federal Court rejected the State of NSW’s arguments that it owned copyright because the plans were made under its direction or control, and/or the plans were first published by it. The Federal Court held that the plans were first published when they were provided by the surveyors to their clients.
Copyright Agency Limited v State of New South Wales [2008] HCA 35
Copyright Surveyor's Plans
Surveys have been recorded in California since shortly after 1900.
Note the disclaimer on our Land Records Information website for Los Angeles County.
Don't know why any MLS would want to create a database around here with such a treasure chest of surveying documents accessible from your office. California is a mandatory filing state for Records of Survey and Corner Records.
Reads to me, based on the last paragraph that they do in fact recognize that they do not own the data and that the surveyor may be able to claim intellectual property. They are basically covering their rear. But they do not have to worry as a suit against the crown would lose. But a suit against those using the records the county posts would be provable as being copyright infringement of intellectual property.
HMMM.... Wonder if you won that suit if the state would discipline the realtors involved?
Copyright Surveyor's Plans
How long have the surveyors been Unionized in California? I think that helps more than anything.
Since North Carolina (and here in Florida) are NOT Recording states, I am not surprised the realtors are collecting those maps.
ABSOLUTELY THIS IS A CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
AT A MINIMUM THIS IS A COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT CASE AND THEFT OF SERVICE AS GEORGIA SURVEYOR SAYS AND POSSIBLY RESTRAINT OF TRADE CASE.
YOU CAN NOT SIT IDLE ON THIS
