How would you feel if photos you created were used to sell million-dollar homes without your permission? That’s exactly what one real estate photographer alleges in a new lawsuit that’s making waves in the property industry.
Alexander Stross, a Texas-based real estate photographer, has filed a copyright infringement suit claiming that agents from two major brokerages – Compass and Side – used his listing photos without paying or crediting him The case highlights an issue you might run into if you do creative work: once your images are online, others may be tempted to grab them, but the legal rights still belong to you.
Allegations of Unlicensed Image Use
Stross’s complaint is straightforward. He says he took a series of professional photos of a property – eight specific images that he owns the copyrights to – and those photos later popped up in listings handled by agents affiliated with Compass Inc. and Side Inc. According to the lawsuit, the agents had no license or permission to use Stross’s images, yet they used them to market and sell homes.
It’s true that real estate listings can be a gray area. Often, when a house is relisted or agents change, photos get reused – sometimes without clear agreements. Photographers like Stross typically license images for a specific agent or time frame. Using them beyond that scope can violate copyright law. In Stross’ view, this isn’t just a minor mix-up; it’s part of a larger pattern of disregard for photographers’ rights in real estate marketing. His lawsuit points out that in the internet age, visuals drive home sales – high-quality photos attract buyers – so unlicensed use isn’t just unethical, it has real monetary impact.
Industry Impact
Essentially, companies should ensure agents either hire photographers (and pay them) or use only images they have rights to. It’s part of a broader push for professionalism as the real estate business becomes ever more visual and online-centric. Compass is a large national brokerage known for its tech-forward approach, and Side partners with boutique agencies, so both pride themselves on innovation. Being hit with a copyright lawsuit isn’t great optics for them. While neither company has made a public comment on the ongoing suit yet, you can bet their legal teams are paying attention.
From a legal standpoint, Stross is seeking financial damages for the alleged infringement. Copyright law allows a creator to claim not only lost licensing fees but also additional damages (sometimes up to $150,000 per willful infringement) to deter this kind of behavior. That means if the court finds Compass and Side liable, they could owe a significant sum – far more than it would have cost to just legitimately license the photos in the first place.
If you’re a photographer or any content creator, this story is a reminder to vigilantly protect your work. Stross had registered his images with the U.S. Copyright Office, which strengthens his case. It’s a good practice to formally register important photos or portfolios; it gives you more leverage if someone uses your work without asking. Also, keep an eye out for your images online – reverse image search tools can help you discover unauthorized uses. It’s unfortunately on you to police misuse, but cases like this show it’s worth the effort.
For the average person scrolling Zillow, this lawsuit won’t change their experience tomorrow. But it may gradually improve the ecosystem of how those beautiful home images get to your screen. Photographers deserve credit and fair pay, and when they get it, they’re able to produce more great imagery.
It may be too late to change course on an industry that doesn't respect rights in a digital environment.
I quit doing architectural in part because high-end real estate agents would trade my images with interior designers or stagers for favors…when confronted with the illegal share they immediately stopped using me and encouraged their peers not to use me because I had "hidden charges."
In a tight-knit community, Stross may win the case and lose his business.
You are correct that it is a tight community, and trying to break in can be very difficult, if not near impossible. I photographed a multimillion-dollar home for a listing agent. The house didn't sell, so the owners went with another company. I sold images for the same price as the other agent, which saved the new agent a lot of time, as I was able to deliver the images the same day. Perhaps the realtor board should also have a say in the two firms that reused the images.
Alex Cooke wrote, “Copyright law allows a creator to claim NOT ONLY [emphasis] lost licensing fees BUT ALSO [emphasis] additional damages (sometimes up to $150,000 per willful infringement) to deter this kind of behavior.”
To be very clear, with a “timely” registered work (either registered before the infringement began or registered within three-months of its first-date of publication), photographers can pursue statutory damages & attorney fees OR actual damages & the infringer’s disgorged profits, but NOT both legal remedies. See 17 USC § 412 (Registration as prerequisite to certain remedies for infringement) + 17 USC § 504 (Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits) + 17 USC § 505 (Remedies for infringement: Costs and attorney’s fees). Statutory damages range from $200/$750 to $150,000.
There Can Be A Second Cause Of Action: Per US copyright law (17 USC §§ 1202-1203) (part of copyright’s DMCA), DMCA violators who knowingly/intentionally remove, cover-up, or change a watermark, logo, attribution, metadata, and other “Copyright Management Information” (CMI) with AI, apps, Photoshop, or any editing software to hide their infringements or induce others to infringed can be liable for the copyright owner’s actual damages & profits OR $2,500 to $25,000 in statutory damages plus attorney fees plus legal costs (at the court’s discretion). A timely registered copyright is not required to pursue CMI violators.
It's true that a copyright is not needed to litigate but there are so many case precedents over the years that prove it will be a stronger case that your lawyer will always tell you to immediately register.
Daniel L Miller wrote, “It's true that a copyright is NOT [emphasis] needed to litigate…”
Maybe you miswrote your comment, but for a US-created work or an international work that’s first-published in the US, a registered copyright claim or a US Copyright Office “refusal letter” are REQUIRED for the copyright owner to have “legal standing” to be able to pursue US-based copyright infringers (litigate) in federal court or at the CCB (Copyright Claims Board).
Daniel L Miller wrote, “…but there are so many case precedents over the years that prove it will be a stronger case that your lawyer will always tell you to immediately register.”
I agree! Creatives/Photographers need to “timely” register their works, either before the infringement occurs or registered within three-months of first-publishing the work, to have the necessary LEVERAGE to PUSH US-based, non-Fair Use, non-judgement proof infringers to settle out of court. Infringers, who are facing a timely registration and choose not to settle, can be liable for statutory damages ($750 to $150,000) and the plaintiff’s attorney fees & costs if the plaintiff (copyright owner) prevails at trial/appeals.
In rare circumstances where the infringer exploited the work commercially (like in pricey ads/promotions, on product packaging, in merchandise where the artwork is prominently featured, and/or in world-wide media campaigns), the copyright owner’s actual damages (and disgorgement of infringer’s profits) can be SUBSTANTIAL and could easily exceed copyright’s maximum statutory damages of $150,000 (without having a timely registration in-hand). How much would the Campbell’s Soup Company be liable if it included an unlicensed photograph/artwork on its millions of soup cans – LOTS of money damages, for sure!