copywriting

[Vernon Martin]

In an ideal world, how much should appraisers be compensated for their data?
Is anyone out there being compensated for data now?

 

[Elliott]

Joyce,
Where do I get my form to join the class action lawsuit?
Or do only appraisers who previously copyrighted their
work get to join?

 

[DWiley]

Is anyone out there being compensated for data now?

Yes. There are several local and regional databases built upon appraisers' data. In some instances appraisers are compensated for data contribution; in some they are not.

 

[DWiley]

Wiley can look all he wants, have all the his friends help him, and can have his interpretations and opinion and make it seem that it is golden

If you doubt my findings, do what I did - and what many appraisers do every day – confirm the data.

I asserted that registering a copyright does not make it illegal for someone to take information such as the GLA, the value conclusion, etc. from a report. I also asserted that if one registers a copyright then the information becomes publicly available. I then proved both of those assertions by obtaining the GLA, value conclusions, etc. from appraisal reports registered by Mr. Vining and Mr. Picarsic.

Once proven, an assertion is no longer an opinion, it is a fact. No one has to take my word on any of this. Anyone on this Forum can conduct the same experiment I did and get the same results.

For those involved with the FNC lawsuit I have a question – How will you respond when you are asked, “Is this your signature under Certification 21 authorizing distribution of your report to data collection or reporting agencies?”

 

[Workbox]

Joyce,
Where do I get my form to join the class action lawsuit?
Or do only appraisers who previously copyrighted their
work get to join?

Here you go http://www.fmvmanagement.com/

Enjoy.

 

[Workbox]

Please do tell those in the FNC suite and maybe others to come, how they should respond DW, since you are just a loly appraiser doing research and trying to educate us. We're all ears.

Again, IT IS A CERT, NOT LAW. The courts will determine.

 

[Elliott]

DW,
You seem to take a certain amount of professional pride in
Cert 21. Many, if not all forum appraisers, howled when we
read it when the new 1004 came out. We knew we'd
just gotten screwed, but didn't know who did it, other
than Fannie. Care to share your insights?

 

[Lee Lansford]

DW,
You seem to take a certain amount of professional pride in
Cert 21. Many, if not all forum appraisers, howled when we
read it when the new 1004 came out. We knew we'd
just gotten screwed, but didn't know who did it, other
than Fannie. Care to share your insights?

Of course, for appraisers who communicated appraisals with the "old" Fannie forms and included Fannie Mae Form 1004B (6-93), the appraiser did authorize via "Contingent & Limiting Conditions" #10: "...the lender/client may distribute the property description section of the report only to data collection or reporting services without having to obtain the appraiser's prior written consent."

 

[DWiley]

You seem to take a certain amount of professional pride in
Cert 21. Many, if not all forum appraisers, howled when we
read it when the new 1004 came out. We knew we'd
just gotten screwed, but didn't know who did it, other
than Fannie. Care to share your insights?

Are you implying that I had something do to with Cert 21??

Wording allowing distribution to data collection and reporting agencies has been part of the Fannie Mae forms since 1993. You can confirm this by looking at a Form 1004B. It may have been around before that; I don't remember and I don't have any reports that old to look at. I was not surprised to see Cert 21 on the new forms, since the issue had already been addressed in the Fannie Mae forms package for over a decade.

Also, for the record, I was not at Roswell, nor was I on the Grassy Knoll.

Again, IT IS A CERT, NOT LAW.

Yes it is - and many appraisers have voluntarily signed it. How can one claim something was stolen if it was used with the appraisers consent?

 

[Carnivore]

I am still waiting to someone try to take the other side. No only because I can't imagine what it is, but it may be the first time we ended a thread with a settled issue.

USPAP applied is state law. Copyright is US Federal law. There might be an angle there. Somewhere around my officeis the proper response to Dannys assertion. It came from the Copyright office and I can not find it now.

If Danny is doing research at the US copyright office I am surprised that he did not ask them that question.