From my perspective it’s silly to assume that because someone is marrying someone else that they’re moving on “too quickly” ... or at all. It is possible to love two people at the same time — when a loved one dies, does it make us love our living family and friends any more or less? Presumably, a person could lose a…

Thanks, I misread bc there was no quote formatting and then it was too late to edit my comment. I suppose I was replying to Kanneck’s comment via Gearoid.

Psst: This isn’t Kotaku or Gizmodo. No one makes you click headlines except you.

Since Madwoman in the Attic thinks critique is important, I’m reposting my reply to her comment that she dismissed here.

It’s just another form of “mean girls”. The super ironic edition.

Your critique is garbage dressed up in feminist dogma. All you’ve done is proclaim people are awful because they discussed their looks (and their desires re their looks) openly. I hope you can realize that this opinion is so extreme that it wraps all the way around and smacks right into patriarchal Puritanism.

Now I’m judging you, because calling someone “awful” for having a frank conversation about how we—women—perceive and change our looks is pretty awful in and of itself.

I disagree vehemently with what you’re saying here:

LOL no. Architecture in the sense that McMansion Hell is critiquing is way beyond someone’s house. If individual people feel sensitive about their buying choices, well, not much to do about that. These are not the homes of people who could afford nothing else.

I am pretty sure her ‘agreement’ to not use photos from Zillow going forward is just lip service slash her being too nice. There’s no real legal reason for her to do that, since she never broke any actual laws (and there *is* a legal reason that Zillow is ‘allowing’ her to leave all her existing posts as-is). I’m…

Nope, even that falls under legal fair use, because while the text of the post itself isn’t necessarily explicit in its critique (though it is still, explicitly, critique) it lives on the site with a footer that states:

I’m not trying to be inflammatory, but I am getting exhausted by the many commenters who really don’t understand fair use. Sorry to lump you in if that’s not the case.

They didn’t actually do anything because they got scared off when they realized she got in touch with the EFF, that’s the victory. Honestly, if I were her, I’d keep using ‘their’ photos (because they’re the same real estate MLS photos that are on every website selling houses). She didn’t have to say “I won’t use…

What difference does that make to a fair use argument? Zillow’s point of view doesn’t matter, she’s not hot-linking photos from their servers.

No, you don’t understand. This is fair use, and the reason Zillow backed down is because they knew they couldn’t win or even come close to winning. In fact, the closest they could possibly get to winning are the many commenters, like yourself, who very obviously don’t understand the stipulations and purpose of fair…

Architecture, like all design fields, is both about ‘taste’ and pragmatic, practical, history of design. What you missed is that the blog isn’t about her personal taste at all, it’s about contemporary architecture critiqued through the lens of history and academic understanding.

Also, if she is allowed to use these photos under fair use, other people outside the real estate industry will be able to and many are scams. They take the photos, market a fake rental, get people to send them big deposits and then disappear.

Why would you support a specific homeowner, legally? Fair use is the same regardless of the owner.

She did do basic homework — her blog has mentioned that all images are used under ‘fair use’ for years. This is an obvious case. She’s allowed to use the images, but that doesn’t change the fact that if someone with deep pockets brings a suit, she will still need to lawyer up ($$).

I hope this movie takes no prisoners and is as mean and as dark as possible.