PFRE is the original online resource for real estate and interior photographers. Since 2006, it has been a community hub where like-minded professionals from around the world gather to share information with a common goal of improving their work and advancing their business. With thousands of articles, covering hundreds of topics, PFRE offers the most robust collection of educational material in our field. The history of real estate photography has been documented within these pages.
All Articles


A frame in Photoshop

With this article you can learn how to make a frame in Photoshop, and enhance the overall look of your real estate photos.



The PFRE Community Forum is an online resource for discussing the art and business of Real Estate and Interior Photography.
Join The Discussion


View Now


For over a decade, photographers from around the world have participated in PFRE’s monthly photography contests, culminating in the year-end crowning of PFRE’s Photographer of the Year. With a new theme each month and commentary offered by some of the finest real estate & interior photographers anywhere, these contests offer a fun, competitive environment with rich learning opportunities. 

Contest Rules


View / Submit


View Archive


PFRE prides itself on the depth and breadth of the information and professional development resources it makes available to our community. Our goal is to help real estate and interior photographers be successful while bringing the community together and elevating the industry as a whole.

Conference News

No items found

Peoria Real Estate Photographer Files Lawsuit Against Local MLS: UPDATE

Published: 26/01/2021

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Back in July, we shared a story about Peoria photographer Mike Boatman, who had filed a lawsuit against his local MLS. There have been some recent developments and Mike wanted to share an update.

Below, you will find Mike’s most recent update, along with his previous update. You can also read his original article about this topic here. Here is what Mike had to say:

As I promised, I am posting all public documents to PFRE as a demonstration of a federal copyright litigation in real-time.

Mike Boatman

October 2020 Update

Within a very short period of time PAAR filed a second motion to dismiss. This one dismisses the first amended complaint.

You can read it here.

We had two weeks to file a response you can read here.


  • I filed a formal copyright litigation complaint in Federal Court on June 30, 2020.
  • Once there is confirmation that the defendant (PAAR) has been served, they have 30 days to file either an answering or a motion.
  • PAAR asked for and received an extension, which is typically automatically granted.
  • On September 14, 2020, PAAR filed a motion to dismiss. (See download 10-0 – Motion to Dismiss.pdf)


  • October 12, 2020 PAAR filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint.
  • October 27, 2020 Mike Boatman through his attorneys filed opposition to the PAAR MTD.

At this point it’s now in the hands of the judge to make a ruling.

As part of their defense here are some of the points from the motion to dismiss.

  • Statute of limitations, they’re saying that I’m outside of the statute of limitations from knowledge of the infringers infringement.
    • Was not aware that PAAR transferred usage rights far beyond what I had granted to the real estate agents until after we served them with the subpoena to get documentation of the agreements between PAAR and the aggregator that redisplayed my images after redesigning their website in 2017.
    • The documents rendered by the subpoena occurred in September 2018. Which is 2 ½ months before the statute of limitations.
  • They argue that being a party to the RIN agreement is a necessary participant in the litigation. And if they can’t be part of the litigation the case should be dismissed.
  • Then they argue that had no authority granted by the RIN agreement to redisplay the images.
    • Classic PAAR wants its cake and eat it too. In my opinion they’re talking out of both sides of their mouth, by arguing is a necessary party because of the RIN then PAAR argues had no authority per the RIN agreement…. Which is it? ….Legally the two arguments cancel each other in my non-attorney view point.
  • Then PAAR argue that images have already been adjudicated in another case. My case against Honig.
    • Classic case of not doing your due diligence, very sloppy legal work in my opinion. The reason I say this is none of the Honig images are part of the PAAR litigation. Plus a few other legal points you can read about in our opposition to the motion.
  • Lastly, they also cite a ruling from the Honig case but fail to cite the following ruling.
    • In my non-legal viewpoint this is disingenuous to the court. Disingenuous is the legal way to call somebody a liar.
    • The reason in my viewpoint they are being disingenuous is when you give sworn testimony your asked to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The key words here are {the whole truth}.
    •  In my opinion by citing the first ruling and not citing the follow-up it is lying by omission.

Of course, these are only my opinions you should read PAAR’s motion to dismiss yourself and then read our opposition to the MTD.

Previous Update


  • June 30, 2020: Filed a formal copyright litigation in Federal Court.
  • Once confirmed that the defendant (PAAR) has been served, they have 30 days to file either an answering or a motion.
  • PAAR asked for and received an extension, which is typically automatically granted.
  • September 14, 2020:PAAR filed a motion to dismiss.

Background on motions:

Following the motion to dismiss, the plaintiff (me) has two weeks to write a response, after which the defendant would get to write a closing response. Then it would go to the judge for a decision which could take anywhere from a day to 18 months.

On Monday, September 29, 2020 we filed a response (11-0 – Response to MTD.pdf) announcing to the court that we would be filing an amended complaint. The amended complaint was also filed at the same time. (12-0 -- Amended Complaint.pdf) Just like the extension request, the first amended complaint is granted automatically.

By filing the amended complaint, we were able to address all the points in their motion to dismiss, making their motion moot.

We felt that their motion would have been rejected. However, if we had filed a response, then they would have been able to respond to it, and it would have been put in the judge’s hands to decide.

By filing the first amended complaint, we were better able to focus the complaint to the exact infringement and render their defense moot.

This resets the clock. PAAR now has another 30 days to either file another motion or answer the complaint.

As I have stated before, the wheels of justice turn slowly.

Typically, the litigation of a copyright infringement case runs about two years. It is a high-stakes chess game built on excruciatingly tedious factual evidence and word-smithed presentation. Words matter. Attention to detail as you are creating your archives, business structure, and procedures plays a crucial role in whether or not you will successfully recover stolen usage fees.

Photographers, our value is far greater than what is being acknowledged in the industry of real estate.

For most of my advertising career, the value of my images in dollars and cents for my clients was measured in the millions. In the past five years, I’ve noticed incredible technical and creative growth in the quality of imagery being created for the real estate community. But the problem as I see it is that everyone except the photographer recognizes the value of imagery.

In 2017, a monumental change occurred leveraging the entire inventory of past photography for the financial benefit of one aggregator. This aggregator followed the example of Zillow’s ongoing usage of imagery and then expanded on it. Other corporations like Better Homes & Gardens, Redfin, and countless others are now entering the market to leverage this bonanza of imagery. Your imagery.

As you can see from the first amended complaint, this is only possible because of usage rights that the MLS granted without legal authority to do so. My MLS, PAAR, is not an isolated situation.

Zillow has distributed images into the general advertising market. This is an absolute fact you can see for yourself here.

Look at the accreditations under the photographs. And this is not the only time!

Note 1: Photographers, the cities in which those photographs came from is also part of the accreditation hyperlinks. If you shoot real estate in those cities, you may want to check to see if your photograph is being used in Bob Vila's blog post.

Note 2: Bob Vila is an honorable individual who contacted me and acquired a license to use my image in this post. I’m sure that he solicited licenses for all of the images used in the post. Judging from the accreditations, he was granted those licenses by ZILLOW.

Given the terms of usage by Better Homes & Gardens real estate, how long do you think it is going to be before your images show up in the Better Homes & Gardens magazine?


Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate

G. Your Representations.

You represent and warrant that you:

(i) are entitled to grant the rights and licenses to your Content under these Terms and none of your Content will infringe any party's Intellectual Property Rights or violate Applicable Law;

3. Licenses.

B. License to Us.

You grant to the us a non-exclusive, sublicensable, transferable, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use, develop, transmit, distribute, modify, reproduce, publicly display, and create derivative works of any of your Content to provide, develop, maintain, support, and improve the Service and the Affiliated Entities' services.

15. Assignment.

These Terms, and any rights and licenses granted hereunder, may not be transferred or assigned by you without our prior written consent, but may be assigned by us without restriction. Any attempted transfer or assignment in violation hereof will be null and void.

As you can see by PAAR’s filing of motion to dismiss they don’t have a defense. If they had a defense, they would have answered the complaint. They are relying on technicalities as their defense at this moment. Initially, the technicality they were hoping for was the statute of limitations. That failed – which is confirmed by them not filing the motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations.

Now they’ve graduated to volitional conduct, which is how Zillow beat VHT on all of the images with the exception of the Zillow Diggs images.

I cannot overemphasize how a proper archive system mindful of chain of evidence for the federal court will play a gigantic role in whether or not you are successful on recovering the full amount of usage fees currently being stolen from you. But none of that is possible if you do not register copyright!

Brandon Cooper