of the license that is the basis for the motion for summary judgment the second factor that makes this very atypical is the district court decided in this case on the ground to call standing for a copyright standing  seven point one zero zero creates this broad bypass license on its behalf and because it so all we need to do survive summary judgment and to return back to the trial is to disprove their attempt to establish the existence of this very very broad license from section seven point one zero in the course of doing that we talked about lots of other provisions both in the act as rules and in the specific documents that read and signed their p c s and their c t f and seven turn it is broad i mean the text is fairly sweeping grants actress and it service providers in we suggest that that is an acknowledgement that actors does have the power to grant suffer losses as it chooses that if you continue to read the scope of what is granted it derivative works of it and authorize its use copying and creation of derivative works so it's both a power to use yourself and to grant a subtext so why would an actress need this explicitly spelled out power to grant a sub license here if the word licensee can already carried all that freight and already granted these copyrights all the way through the chain we think that by giving actors the right to use it and to authorize those uses it's consistent with irony that this is describing actors making a choice as we as we went out and everything we're authorized suggests that actors as being some sort of a decision about this under reading actors would not have any great area at all if it signed a license agreement with another entity for one photograph to use one time for one purpose according to writer binge reading very strict reading of the laws and see that person would giving notice to all the actors members and as relevant as sort of explained it to you that this is uncertain this is a grant from every member to every other member it creates an enormous amount of madame like city of these notices and knocked out to be flying whole the whole section of rules from seven point one seven want to use seven point three these are all about keeping the database confidential and all of these rules have this idea of controlling public access and use of these materials which are they're both valuable to the members and have privacy implications for the homeowners of people who are who live in houses or having photographs taken of their houses and part of what makes actors work is the confidence that its members have and the potential and their customers the home owners have that if they let pictures be taken out of their home that those materials will be kept as confidential as can be they will not be reuse for these other purposes later under reference reading every single licensee who's ever had this any kind of license from after this would be able to reuse those materials and at most they would face some sort of a tiny penalty that actress m inconsistent with the text of the very document if you're allowed to use these pictures to them i e the property is and not just to sell my i could see that there would be a temporal limited from trying to sell my house and sell it tomorrow that it would be a reason for the picture after that but if you're also using it to value my neighbor's house then the picture could be a third permittivity in my confidentiality interests seem a little bit limited given that it's going to keep me at least for some period of time i guess eventually become stale that some period of time is going to be used to value my neighbor's house and then house down the street or whatever well the the way the rules try to address that is by limiting the use physically assault photographs they are not supposed to be given to local broker sets up a website with real estate listings under the visions of this rule they cannot put other brokers sold listings on there they can if they're working with particular client benefit the seller if i look i read and i see a house and i can look at the pictures and all that but that would be consistent with mr stross is understood use rightly that i for for i'm looking for a house and i see it on record or not if it's an active ok but if it but if it's a house that is not an active listing but then if i'm trying to figure out well is the house that's for sale at one hundred main street really worth what they're charging and i see well the house at one of two main street that's what it's being used for i'm benefiting because i can figure out whether the house a one hundred a street is worth you know what if they're charging whatever by looking at a prior sale and in that what's happening here and really be able me exceptions that ar says whole thing about posted on instagram or whatever but this past listing i don't see why that is inherently not consistent with the real estate value and sale and use that stross thought his pictures were broad license and my point in as i understood it to be not just while one of two main street is for sale you can list a picture in once one of two main street is sold you have to take it down that in the he was he created a brother like a broader boss ok so then actress granted some kind of license to read then they can only be limited by his license to actors in other words if he had granted a very narrow one they could grant a broader we start there so would you agree with me that his license to actors would encompass a sold home that's being used to determine whether a currently listed home is really worth it as a career yes i  extra so other than this thing where they're telling everybody to post it what is it that red fins doing that's inconsistent with that with the with miles brand to actress yes broader than stross gave them that's right your argument is they gave them a certain degree of license and then narrowed it down to read and that's where the district court in your view got astray because it said well that's filing a state or lawsuit on a contract or not to share information with each other for the benefit of all if that is if information about the homes that are for sale was not made available broadly to all of the people at a market who are looking to purchase homes here be very inefficient to try lock boxes and what becomes of the information that flowed as a seller into the last eight of that really brings us to what we're talking about today which is it will seven point one zero at issue today is the use of approximately eight hundred photographs taken by mr straw that were uploaded to the actors do those eighteen hundred photographs are a very small portion of approximately forget the numbers of today but it's it's well in excess of five million photographs that exist in the actor's database and nationwide in red fins database from the eighty four  analysis can change the rules without worrying about past licenses that were brought in and broker a broker be you know void the types of disputes that are here today because i know that rather than ways mainly through rules license from stross to actress is against self a license to read and instead we say redfin needed some sort of license from actress then in your defense of i'm a license see to the copyright claim you would have to prove wouldn't you that the your use is consistent with both the license to actresses and a license from actress to you to prove your defense would you agree with that if in fact your original argument about it's a license to us to is not found to be accurate so i would agree with half of what just specifically i would agree that be an issue to read for us not between mr straw but it's your defense and the only one you have to create two links to get to your defense your link is i you know john gave it to jane and jane gave it to me and if jane didn't give it to you you can assert that so that's what i'm trying to say i'm having trouble as a matter first principles i understand it's the district court got this matter standing you're suing under state court license and i mean subway to only residential use will now if your person he starts using that space for commercial purposes i is the original owner don't have the right to go on because i have given up that right that the right that i give it you gave it up to a specific person who then did not in turn give it up to someone else and so that someone else doesn't have anything to hang onto to say here is where i'm getting there just a tr trespassers forest if they were given residential rights and now they want to open a store they don't have that right from anybody they don't have it from my licensee if they don't have it for me so i don't get i don't that's my problem with first principles i don't understand the argument that you can go beyond the license you were given and as long as you're not being sued by your license or and only by the almighty license or well my license or actors has this has never made a  and the question is can he so you for a copyright violation your answer is no because i have this license and i'm saying if it doesn't say x then you can't wave it around and i'm not understanding what's wrong with that like this but this isn't lint redfin is it limiting it to that so i could just say well boy that's a nice countertop i guess i'll just go get or countertop like that in my existing house that i'm not going to sell or buy forever it doesn't  at least or is there a fact question whether that kind of use because people use pictures on the internet for really weird reasons and so this isn't in my view furthering the purpose of buying or selling a house if you just say look at you know share these photos for kitchens then we're getting beyond that we're not saying sure this code is to find a kitchen in a house for sale and yes if you're using copyrighted pictures you do have to be careful not to go beyond what the purpose was so you're kind of saying anything that further fuels the excitement about houses is somehow related to buying and selling houses and that strikes me is not something i can accept as a matter of law its website many of the in the houses that read and deals with i mean all of the reason i know like when you go to a professional photographer and they send you ten pictures of yourself and for you to pick one they have a big line across and saying you know copyright or stuff then that would you would be able to just take a copy so you can pick the one you want and then they license you that want and then you can use it or maybe they don't maybe they just sell you that picture for thirty bucks or whatever and you're done so it seems like if reform to make sure that that's happening and if they're not in compliance then there are procedures that they are gone through to make sure that they come back into compliance and at the end of the day as a redfin sort of social media share buttons to share buttons on photographs of already sold the properties falls would then rule seven point one of those restrictions on y absolutely one many mosses specifically allow for share to actress is silent on the issue but a falls within the restriction on use is described by real seven point one yes because because sharing those properties again is very useful to people who are communicating with their agents communicating with their spouses with their making decisions about what these they want to even even though they're already sold properties yes because that allows them to one fin licenses to bid there's one license discussed with two potential ways to view that license one is directly from mr stross those of one zero one is from mr straw us two factors under seven point one zero and then from actors broader license then would you agree that it is consistent for people to and the fact that i've been shoes to use it for somewhere like my class project or whatever then that that would not be on re the purpose of actors and i and and i want to address this idea that actress can enforce these things better than the copyright holder it's simply not true for two reasons the first is the practical one that their penalties are very small bird the second is that don't hold the copyright and only the party who holds the expose rights and cover that can bring in copyrights you can get copyright remedies so under redfin suggestion here the copyright would be effectively  the full mourning as you see the the grist of what we do is great variety of subject matter you have really had a full swing between criminally related