https://californiaemploymentlaw.foxrothschild.com/2017/11/articles/advice-counseling/beware-of-independent-contractor-agreements-with-work-made-for-hire-language

Baggins, I’m only a real estate appraiser. I used to be willing to tilt at any windmill that came along, but ever since my trusty steed went lame; Sancho changed his name to Gordo and got that gig with Flaca, and Dulcinea ran off with the used car salesman it just isn’t the same anymore. Good luck!

Surely yes, but I maintain the position there is a better way to approach these issues.  We can’t regulate natural human bias, but we could return to a wiser monetary system which would alleviate many of these concerns, letting the free market control access and risk pertaining to lending.  The video says it all, I’m just the messenger.  Hypothetically speaking of course, if people managed the larger issues first, these issues on the table would not even be noteworthy because the conflict would not exist.

Baggs, no need to debate or discuss what the meaning of ‘is’ is. As used in my comment it means unlawfully excluding from service based solely on the neighborhood that a property is located in-usually tied to race; but which could also be tied to predominant cultures or religions. There is no sugar coating or justification for it. It is illegal.

That’s not great irony.  We use data in ‘fair use’, for confidential clients.  Quite different from casting a blanket over all data, capturing it, structuring it, and making additional stand alone products from it.  That certainly is not ‘fair use’. Appraisal data is not funded by government, but the government treats it like assessors data as if it should be public and they have fair use rights to it. FNMA is a private company who’s claiming fair use rights on all private data. Private property rules should be the guide. We’re all ‘publishing’ every single report we create. The nightmare scenario for a journalist, forced to publish every single piece of work, forced to commit to publishing before the final product is confirmed. Not allowed to publish to the free market, can only publish to one single private company who claims a virtual monopoly via integration into government. If it’s o.k. to use this data this way, how can I monetize my own reports legally and sell the data myself? You know, cut the middle man out of it? Rule of thumb, if it’s legal for one person, it’s legal for all people or it should not be legal.

Yes, outstanding!  What is redlining anyways?  A convenient way to exclude certain provable higher risk areas or persons from free market access to lending?  Cause and effect must have meaning, and market corrections be allowed to happen, before the argument can be made that people are being categorically excluded by race or color.   The popular argument against natural corrections is the already ran away inflationary points, supporting the need for continuation of federal systems to manage the problems they themselves created.  The problem is easy access to cheap money.  The solution is a sound money system to slow down the inflation.  Now, reconcile data and copyright infringement in a hypothetical scenario where the fed and gse’s were absent and not part of the equation.  I present to you;  Mythbusters, inflation nation.  Dare to dream.

Great insights. The most obvious and immediate effect of CU review systems was the way underwriters and various reviewers handled reports. At first I resisted the sudden standing of underwriters that something needed corrected every single time. Then I learned many of them jumped from 8 something or more, to 40 something a day standard. Also opening up the door for a wide range of non qualified people to suddenly provide an ‘administrative review’. Not sure about the accuracy of those figures but it’s my understanding the productivity of underwriting jumped dramatically with CU. My tag line for that was; Good for the underwriters for finding a way to save so much time. Unfortunately much of the time saved was merely dumped back in the appraisers lap, now being requested to perform redundant and rather meaningless reporting and revision. The ‘stip of the week’ as they say. Of course this only accentuated the system of backwards rewards because now the see addenda totally automated appraisers were even more helpful towards productivity, and the gap between true detailed appraisal turn times and automated appraisal turn times grew even further apart. As usual, cost savings were not returned to consumers.

Strange. I was never consulted about supporting or opposing a national appraisers data base in the 1990’s or at any time since.

Similarly, I don’t recall FNMA having the newer broader use distribution 20 years ago either. In fact I don’t recall seeing it at all before UAD.

It would be silly for an AMC, or any other entity for that matter, to oppose copyright on appraisal reports.  As you noted, copyright protection is automatic for original works, such as appraisal reports.

I am not opposed in any way to copyright or copyright notice.  What I am opposed to is misinformation about what copyright protection is.

The “snake oil” I was referring to was the notion that many have promoted over the years  – that copyright means that data cannot be extracted from reports.  That just isn’t true, but some seem to enjoy getting appraisers riled up by suggesting/implying that is the case. Mr. V and his partners certainly milked a lot of money out of appraisers by fanning that fire.

The “data war” was lost by appraisers back in the late 90s when they rejected a national database of appraiser data.  Many now realize that if appraisers had not been so myopic, they could have built a national database and been in control of the data instead of Fannie.  But that horse is out of the barn.

I don’t know any legitimate reason why anyone would want acces to digital signatures either. I only addressed the topic because another commenter mentioned file security. I have used true digital signatures for almost 20 years, and I encourage others to do the same.

Outstanding!!!

By the way, has anyone considered WHY we put census tract numbers in appraisals still? Ostensibly originally to enable the feds to track fair housing and anti discrimination, their continued use has the exact opposite effect.

Not too long ago a broker told me a commercial appraisal he had ordered was cancelled because the bank branch manager had checked the census tract profile data and ‘decided Compton was a bad risk area.’

Now anyone that knows Compton is aware that it is comprised primarily of African American residents -though increasingly Latino housing migration is pushing against that trend. Additionally, anyone that knows Compton is also aware that there are far more upstanding, hard working typical Americans than there are any that are not. (factors we are not permitted to consider as appraisers-whether buyers do or not)

There are as many areas there that would otherwise have been described as “pride of ownership” neighborhoods before the powers that be decide that phrase was itself discriminatory rather than merely being descriptive, as in any other area.

Compton has produced some of the most famous athletes and entertainers to be sure, but it has also produced teachers, lawyers, bankers, Realtors®, Police officers, government employees, etc..

But despite this, a Los Angeles based banker redlined the area based on census tract data, NOT based on unavoidable local knowledge, but based on an internal formula that was (reportedly) census tract based whereby the RATIO of African American residency was used to make an adverse decision on a commercial loan for a local business operator.

I have no idea whether the business owner was African American or not. I DO know that had I ever been able to pry the name of the bank out of the loan broker, they’d still be in litigation.

I wonder where the FTC is regarding the requirement by the loan purchasing monopoly for most mortgages when they REQUIRED appraisal reports be provided in a format originally intended by appraisers?

There is still no legitimate appraisal reason for requiring an appraiser’s report be provided or delivered in any format other than PDF , via email or secure email.

Does requiring xml result in a more secure report, or less secure?
Does requiring env result in a more secure report, or less secure?
Appraisers intend the ENTIRE report be read in order to be meaningful. Does any format other than PDF encourage this?
USPAP includes a requirement that appraisers take reasonable steps to assure there reports are not used in a manner that is misleading. Isn’t an abbreviated summary of limited data provided to investors a misleading report?
Would statement(s) that “This appraisal is intended to be considered and reviewed in it’s entirety. It is null and void if it is decompiled. ALL users agree and concur by use of this appraisal for any purpose that the appraiser may not be held liable by any party for any purpose where decisions were based on extracted summaries rather than the entire report;” be “violations” of FNMA policy?.

Doesn’t the FTC recognize as a restraint against trade, conditions where the vendor is required as a condition of being allowed to work that they must subordinate their own professional sound appraisal practices and principles to those of the only effective ‘game in town’?

DW, now lets be completely candid, ok?

Are you a lender? No, Michael was incorrect there-but not far off the mark. Being a manager at an appraisal management company as an agent for lenders is almost the same thing to many of us.

No, not actually a lender. But DW or Danny Wiley as he is otherwise know is a manager at LSI/Black Knight/ServiceLinks. LSI is one of the original appraisal management companies that pioneered rip off fees and unrealistic turn times for appraisers as far back as 1993 (and earlier-though the fees tended to be less unfair prior to 1993). There is no evidence that the derivative has changed the outrageously unreasonably low and inadequate fee policy of their predecessor.

Danny, no one is or has advocated anything here other than FREE copyright suggestions so where does this snake oil and charlatan aspect tie in?

Is there a reason LSI (derivative) doesn’t want appraisers to copyright? Is there a reason LSI (or it’s derivative) wants access to appraisers digital signatures?

As for FNMA maybe it is well past time for appraisers to stand up to FNMA ad refuse to accept the pre printed limiting conditions and other form constraints because they in fact run contrary to USPAP.

Besides, no one suggested the form or comments be labeled as alternate ‘limiting conditions’ on FNMA reports…merely as additional comments. If that tends to contradict FNMAs own S of LC’s then maybe FNMA also needs to update its preprinted scope of work comments and intended use comments since any claim that the intended use of the report is only for collateral evaluation purposes is clearly misleading.

Borrowers and others that pay for appraisals should be prominently notified that they are paying to provide for FNMAs data collection efforts.

As FNMA sought to steal appraisers work product for use by third parties that have NOTHING TO DO with the specific loan that the appraisal is prepared for, we have all been told that somehow the FNMA form is sacred and cannot be changed.

I challenge that. When the form dictates, promotes or encourages non compliance with USPAP we have an obligation to challenge it.

The current polices of FNMA and their UAD form with statement of limiting conditions at a minimum create a ‘grey area’ with respect to intended use (separate from intended users); neighborhood trends and conditions that are not misleading, and in the case of CU claims of “Peer Adjustments” FNMA has already admitted they are based on -pre 2015 (up through 2014) policies and guidelines that FNMA has acknowledged their awareness that appraisers were adjusting to guidelines rather than to market.

So Danny, let’s get ALL the concerns and issues out in the open, OK? Thank you.

What “software” might  you be referring to? Because any copyright features in software were already there prior to that and certainly did not make any software company “money”. You apparently just have a beef with said software company. I was at those supposed “seminars” and your claim is false, borderline-slanderous and flat out wrong. What a screwed up worldview you have- I hope you never get put in charge of a policy-making body (again).

What is “data” is irrelevant to the discussion. Anyone may extract any information from a copyrighted report that he/she wishes without violating copyright law. That includes factual information as well as stated opinions. Again, that was demonstrated by those who lawfully extracted a lot of information from reports with registered copyright. If you think that the US copyright office would aide (and even instruct) in an activity that violated US copyright law, I do not know what to say about that.

Lender? I am not a lender. Never been a lender. Never been employed by a lender. I am an active state certified appraiser.

My passion on this topic is driven by the charlatans who preyed upon appraisers before using fear marketing about copyright laws. They traveled the country selling the snake oil seminars and software to help “protect” appraisers, when in fact they were just using fear and ignorance of the law to line their own pockets. It was classic fear marketing. Whip up a bunch of emotion on a topic and then sell the solution. I have friends who were duped then, and I have no desire to see a repeat of all that. We have far too many important issues to tackle to waste time and resources on this rabbit hole.

You can throw all the ad hominem attacks you wish. That will not change the laws. Anyone who is seriously interested in the topic may find authoritative guidance at the links already provided.

My apologies, I just realized who “DW” likely is, and it makes perfect sense his shielded, clouded views as they’ve been espoused for years with various organizations and companies. Another non-appraisal, appraisal “expert”.

And what, exactly is “data”?  You don’t seem to want to answer simple questions because they don’t align with YOUR view that lenders can do whatever they want.

Is a condition rating “data”? Or is an expression of data that is copyrightable? You throw around terms like “data” as if everything filled in on a Fannie Mae form is just “data”.  “Data” is not a term dealt with in copyright law. FACTS and OPINIONS are and those two items are what needs to be separated in this discussion.

An exercise at the copyright office is not a legal proceeding that determines if something is legal or illegal. It’s an opinion by a bureaucrat. Only a court can decide if this is legal or illegal and that has not yet been tested yet.

Why are you so averse to seeing this theory tested? Because you’re a lender that would like to see see appraisers put in their place (or eliminated)? Or a self-hating appraiser who is part of the problem?

<<Extracting material from copyrighted sources WITHOUT PERMISSION (or outside of “fair use” exceptions) is illegal>>

That is the problem with this whole copyright issue. People THINK they know things that just are not so.   Some even made a lot of money selling such snake oil in years past.

If extracting information from a report covered by copyright was illegal, then why would the copyright office itself help a group of appraisers extract information from reports with registered copyrights?  The group that undertook that little exercise, without seeking any permissions from the report authors,  and posted the results on the Internet  did so just to demonstrate the fact that extraction of information from a report is actually NOT illegal.

Follow your own advice.  Go to the copyright office and ask for access to reports with registered copyrights.  Then extract all the data from those reports that you wish.  Anyone can do it.  You cannot copy the report, but you can extract data from it at will.

Copying or reproducing a copyrighted work is illegal.  Extracting data from such a work is not.  I am sorry that this does not align with your apparent hopes and beliefs, but the law covers what it covers – nothing more.

Even if what you assert was true, it would not matter in the Fannie Mae forms world.  The pre-printed certs, which one may not change, allow for distribution of reports to data services.  That has been on the Fannie forms for 20 years.  If one does not like that, one may elect not to do such work.

Extracting material from copyrighted sources WITHOUT PERMISSION (or outside of “fair use” exceptions) is illegal, not everything from copyrighted material. Information in my local MLS is copyrighted, but I have PERMISSION to use such information in my appraisal reports from the MLS.

Possession of a report does not constitute an assumption of the rights afforded by copyright to another party.

Fannie Mae rules are for Lenders not appraisers read the Fannie Mae selling guide and a master seller servicer contract. Pretty simple when is the last time an appraiser sold a loan to Fannie Mae in the secondary market???

Again Fannie Mae rules are for LENDERS NOT APPRAISERS!!!!

This is why appraisers will be wiped because of ignorance and persons unwilling to learn facts

You are quite right – but I made no such claim. ?  Copyright exists upon creation of the appraisal report. So, notification of copyright is just notification of that which inherently exists.  A copyright notice in and of itself is not an issue.

The language cited above goes far beyond a copyright notice.  Going to the “basics” as you call it, the certs/LC on standard Fannie Mae forms specifically address promulgation of the report to data collections services.  The cited example language contradicts that.  Hence, that would not be a allowable comment in a Fannie report.

The basic problem is that so many people think/assert that a copyright on a report means that it is illegal to extract data form such a report.  That is simply not true, and it is a good thing it isn’t true – if extracting data from copyrighted material was illegal, appraisers could not do their jobs ?