EA reusing photos

rcorke

Should have won't apply pressure to new owners as they are elderly and we believe that ill health is forcing them to sell.

andy.m_2

you didnt pay for them, let it go.
Bitterness helps nobody.

Gra76

At worst they're diddling the current owners out of a few quid. Unless you're paying for the current owners to advertise with the EA I don't see why it bothers you. I don't see what you expect to achieve by complaining, you don't even own the property anymore so I'm not surprised they're hardly forthcoming.

poppysarah

Have they got your furniture and personal possessions on?

andy.m_2

if they have then the prospective buyers will notice, and likely not care. Makes no odds if it has.

squibbs25

Well to be honest I think it's cheeky of the EA to re use the pictures.
Maybe it would be better practice for them to seek permission to reuse them.
I think I would be pretty peeved had this happened to me!
As for doing anything about it you probably don't have a leg to stand on as previously said :-(

squibbs25

On the other hand take it as a compliment that the house looked so good ��

rcorke

Yes they have our furniture and personal possessions on which is how we identified that they are our photos. To me it feels like an invasion of privacy.

ValHaller

andy.m wrote: »

Copyright is exactly sufficient to allow then to reuse photos.
They own the photos, they can use them as they see fit.
If the house had not sold and you paid the £180 for them, then you may have argued that you took on the copyright.

Let it ride, inform the other party if you see fit but what exactly is the point?

No, copyright is definitely necessary but I do believe that copyright alone is not sufficient. Copyright is the power to grant or withhold licence to others relating to words or images on media - but it is not of itself a licence to publish private information held in words or media. The photographs were taken in private property under implied licence solely for the purpose of the sale of the property by the owners at the time. I would say that the EA would certainly need further licence to reuse the photos for general publicity.

And that being the case, they would also need licence from the OP for selling again.

I remember being caught on camera for filming of some trivial TV programme/ Now certainly, the film maker had copyright - but I was asked to sign a release form to allow them to broadcast. Now why would they do that if copyright were sufficient authority to broadcast?

Manchee

ValHaller wrote: »

I remember being caught on camera for filming of some trivial TV programme/ Now certainly, the film maker had copyright - but I was asked to sign a release form to allow them to broadcast. Now why would they do that if copyright were sufficient authority to broadcast?

Because showing an image of someone where they are recognisable is separate to copyright issues and treated much differently. They wouldn't have needed you to sign a release form if they have made your image unrecognisable (eg. blurred your face).

Getting back to the OP's situation, whoever took the photos would have copyright over them. The EA prob paid for a licence to use them, I would assume they are using them again to reduce the cost to the new sellers (if you were selling and one agent will charge for photos and one wont as they have previous photos, which agent would you go with?).

At the end of the day OP, what harm does it cause you? Sure people can see your stuff, but that doesn't mean you still have the same stuff or that anyone interested to see that you have an xbox and a massive tv and 3 blueray players and 6 laptops or whatever knows where you live now. You didn't pay for the images, you didn't take them, you weren't in them. I don't see why you're getting upset tbh.