Real estate law has always been about land, boundaries, and ownership. Modern real estate practice, however, increasingly turns on something less tangible—digital content. Floor plans, architectural renderings, and listing photography now drive buyer interest, shape pricing, and determine whether a property gets attention in a crowded market. Yet despite their commercial value, these materials are routinely copied and reposted across listings as if they belong to the property itself.[i] They do not. And as real estate marketing becomes increasingly digital, the question becomes not just who owns the property, but who owns the content that sells it.

A common misconception in the industry is that listing content “comes with the property.” Copyright law does not work that way. Owning a home does not mean owning the creative works used to market it. A floor plan, photograph, or rendering is a separate creative work, even if it depicts the same physical space. Copyright law protects “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression.”[ii] That definition includes the very content that now dominates real estate marketing. Listing photographs are classic copyrightable works.[iii] Renderings are typically copyrightable too, as they involve creative choices about perspective, lighting, staging, and style.[iv] Even floor plans which are often treated as purely functional, can be protected when they reflect original expression in their depiction.[v]

This matters because floor plans are used to drive interest, increase showings, and reduce buyer uncertainty. Many agents view them as neutral informational tools, but under copyright doctrine, a floor plan is not automatically exempt because it represents a functional space. The underlying idea of a layout is not protected, however the expression, the specific drawing and presentation, can be.[vi]

The copyright risk becomes most obvious when a listing changes hands. Homes are relisted, flipped, renovated, or sold again within a short time.[vii] Agents switch brokerages. Sellers terminate contracts. A new agent comes in, sees the old marketing package, and reuses it. That reuse feels efficient and harmless because it is the same property. However, the legal question is not whether the reuse is convenient, but whether the person reposting the content has the right to do so.

Under the Copyright Act, ownership initially belongs to the author of the work.[viii] Even if the homeowner or agent paid for the work, the creator often retains the copyright unless it is properly transferred.[ix] The Copyright Act requires that a copyright assignment be in writing.[x] Without a written assignment, or at minimum a clear license, reusing the work in a new listing can become legally questionable.[xi] A “license” may exist, but its scope matters. Is it limited to one listing term? One brokerage? One platform? Does it survive after the listing expires?

In practice, these questions are often unanswered because many listing arrangements rely on informal understandings rather than clear intellectual property terms. Most listing agreements are silent on intellectual ownership and reuse.[xii] They do not explicitly address who owns or can reuse the intellectual property in listing materials. Thus, the gap between industry custom and legal doctrine is exactly what creates risk. Real estate professionals sometimes assume that copyright claims over listing materials are unlikely, or too minor to matter. But the increase of digital real estate marketing has raised the stakes.[xiii]

First, listings are distributed across multiple platforms, reposted on social media, and stored long after the sale closes.[xiv] Second, creators are becoming more aware of their rights. Professional photographers and floor plan companies operate businesses that depend on licensing revenue. They have strong incentives to enforce unauthorized reuse. Third, copyright liability can be serious. A claim does not require a massive commercial enterprise; it can arise from a single unauthorized posting. Even if a case settles quickly, a demand letter alone can create real costs for agents and brokerages, including takedowns, reputational harm, and time-consuming disputes.[xv] The result is a growing common reality. Brokerages are becoming content distributors whether they realize it or not, and content distribution carries legal obligations.

Accordingly, the Multiple Listing Service (“MLS”) system creates a unique trap. The MLS is a database that real estate agents and brokers use to list properties for sale (or rent) and share them with other agents.[xvi] It is designed for sharing, it standardizes content, and it often encourages the mindset that listing materials are “part of the listing,” and not separately owned works. But the MLS is not a copyright-free zone.[xvii] Copyright law does not disappear because a file is uploaded to a shared platform.

The key question remains, what rights were granted and to whom? In some cases, an agent may have an implied license to use marketing content for a specific listing, but implied licenses are fact-dependent and limited.[xviii] They are not a safe substitute for clear written terms, especially when the listing is later reused by a different agent or brokerage. This is why the phrase “your listing isn’t a license” is more than a catchy title. It captures a legal truth: a listing is a transaction. A license is a legal right. One does not automatically include the other.

Nonetheless, this is not a call to punish agents for everyday practice. It is a call for the industry, and the lawyers advising it, to modernize how listing content is handled.[xix] The solution is straightforward. Clarity comes through contracting. Brokerages and real estate professionals should treat listing materials as valuable assets and define rights up front.[xx] At a minimum, parties should address written licenses for photos, floor plans, and renderings; whether reuse is permitted for relisting; the scope of permitted use (MLS, social media, third-party platforms, and print advertising); the duration of the license (limited to the listing term or continuing after termination); transferability (whether a new agent or broker may reuse the materials); and responsibility for takedowns, indemnity, and any infringement claims.[xxi]

For developers and builders, architectural intellectual property rights should also be addressed directly in design agreements. If a developer expects to reuse designs, modify plans, or build multiple units, the contract should allocate those rights clearly. Ultimately, this issue sits at the intersection of two fast-moving industries of real estate and digital media. The lawyers who understand both will be positioned to protect clients, prevent disputes, and add value in transactions. Because in 2026, a listing is not just a listing. It is content. It is marketing. And increasingly, it is intellectual property.

[i] See 17 U.S.C. § 106 (2022) (granting copyright owners exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, and publicly display copyrighted works).

[ii] See 17 U.S.C. § 102(a) (2022) (defining copyrightable subject matter as “original works of authorship” fixed in a tangible medium of expression).

[iii] See id. (covering pictorial works as original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium).

[iv] See id. (protecting original visual expression, including creative choices like lighting, perspective, and staging).

[v] See 17 U.S.C. § 102(b) (2022) (distinguishing unprotectable ideas from protectable expression).

[vi] See id. (clarifying that copyright does not protect ideas, procedures, systems, or methods of operation, only the author’s expression).

[vii] See 17 U.S.C. § 106 (2022) (reposting and reuse can implicate the reproduction, distribution, and public display rights).

[viii] See 17 U.S.C. § 201(a) (2022) (providing that copyright ownership initially vests in the author).

[ix] See id; 17 U.S.C. § 204(a) (2022) (requiring a signed writing to transfer copyright ownership or grant an exclusive license).

[x] See 17 U.S.C. § 204(a) (2022) (requiring a signed writing to transfer copyright ownership).

[xi] See Effects Assocs., Inc. v. Cohen, 908 F.2d 555, 558–59 (9th Cir. 1990) (recognizing implied nonexclusive licenses may arise but emphasizing that copyright ownership transfers require a signed writing).

[xii] See generally Kathryn S. Robinson, Providing Copyright Protection to Real Estate Listings: Protecting Brokers, Sellers, and Consumers, 15 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 318 (2016) (discussing how copyright law applies to multiple listing service databases and the need to protect listing content under intellectual property doctrine).

[xiii] See generally VHT, Inc. v. Zillow Grp., Inc., 918 F.3d 723, 727–33 (9th Cir. 2019) (addressing infringement claims involving real estate listing photographs and online platform display/use).

[xiv] See 17 U.S.C. § 106 (2022) (digital reposting implicates exclusive rights, including reproduction, distribution, and public display).

[xv] See 17 U.S.C. § 512 (2022) (creating the DMCA notice-and-takedown process and safe harbors for qualifying service providers).

[xvi] See Multiple Listing Service, Wex, Legal Info. Inst., Cornell L. Sch., https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/multiple_listing_service [https://perma.cc/SMH4-SZC6] (last visited Feb. 13, 2026) (defining a multiple listing service as a database used by cooperating real estate brokers to share property listings).

[xvii] See Article 16: Copyright and Other Intellectual Property Rights, CVR MLS, https://resourcecenter.cvrmls.com/article-16-copyright-and-other-intellectual-property-rights/ [https://perma.cc/UN9Q-QY76] (last visited Feb. 13, 2026) (requiring participants to represent authority to upload content and typically granting the MLS a license to display/distribute listing content).

[xviii] See Effects Assocs., Inc. v. Cohen, 908 F.2d 555, 558–59 (9th Cir. 1990) (recognizing that an implied nonexclusive license may arise from the parties’ conduct but emphasizing that such licenses are limited in scope and fact-dependent).

[xix] See Nat’l Ass’n of Realtors, Who Owns Your Property Photos?, NAR (Nov. 8, 2016), https://www.nar.realtor/copyright/who-owns-your-property-photos [https://perma.cc/PP6K-6KGZ] (advising that photographers often own listing photos unless rights are transferred/licensed and encouraging written permissions for reuse).

[xx] See Meredith Caruso, What Realtors Need to Know About Photos & Copyright Law, Florida Realtors (July 11, 2022), https://www.floridarealtors.org/news-media/news-articles/2020/07/what-realtors-need-know-about-photos-copyright-law [https://perma.cc/TFN6-3TE9] (providing Florida-focused guidance on copyright ownership, permissions, and reuse risk in listing photos).

[xxi] See Nat’l Ass’n of Realtors, supra note xvii (recommending clear permissions/licensing for listing photography); see also Caruso, supra note xviii (encouraging agents to confirm reuse rights and avoid infringement exposure).