EA reusing photos

mysterywoman10

Actually furniture alone can affect the sale of a property, our EA told us when we were discussing why a property the same as ours didnt't sell down the road. The feedback they constantly got was that the house was too dark because of the floor coverings and very dark wood furniture. So even changing the carpets could make the property look very different and a potential buyer could be mislead into travelling to something that was not their cup of tea.

moneyistooshorttomention

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

Actually furniture alone can affect the sale of a property, our EA told us when we were discussing why a property the same as ours didnt't sell down the road. The feedback they constantly got was that the house was too dark because of the floor coverings and very dark wood furniture. So even changing the carpets could make the property look very different and a potential buyer could be mislead into travelling to something that was not their cup of tea.

True. Never underestimate just how stupid some people (viewers in this case) can be.

To you and I its quite obvious that "You have problem with furniture = no problem because it will soon be gone" but its astonishing how many people seem to be affected by a totally irrelevant factor like that. Floor coverings are at least a bit relevant - but only to the extent that anyone with any sense just thinks "Right - how much to change those floor coverings to my own then?" and adds then into their own personal calculation as to whether they can afford that house or no. Of course I, for one, am pretty typical and I want to see my mid-price tasteful neutral fitted carpets in all bedrooms and reception rooms (exactly as I have in my present house then....) but that's nothing a few thousand £s cant put right in a day or two.

But the point is - a lot of people ARE pretty darn daft and take these things into account when sussing out a house and if all else is absolutely totally equal between two houses and one has tatty furniture and one has MY type of furniture then I'd go for the one with MY type of furniture because I'd think "Maybe that means they have MY standards generally - and they'd chase builders up as much as I would to ensure they do their jobs properly".

googler

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

I am more than a little puzzled:cool: by the repeat the message that different furniture isnt a misrepresentation.

Why? Are you unclear on what I mean by the Misdescription legislation, and what it covers? I've provided a link to the prescribed matters, and 'contents' and/or 'furnishings' aren't on the list....

We are NOT just talking different furniture - we are talking different interior and that could mean one heck of a lot more than just different furniture. I have given some examples - graffiti, bodged DIY, walls up or down.

Yes, but this is speculation, and there's nothing to suggest that this is actually the case.

Yes, if there is actually something in terms of 'condition' that is materially absent from the photos, that is a property misdescription in terms of the legislation, but we can't infer this from the OP's contributions, can we?

mysterywoman10

Well the OP probably doesn't know how different or not it is now ?? All they can see is their house as it was then! But it can't be exactly the same can it?

I suggested it because it will make the EA twitchy at the very least and it's likely to produce the outcome the OP wants to make them remove the photos. It is certainly worth a shot.

"I've phoned you before about using the photographs of our house from when we lived their with all our possessions in, and asked you to remove them please. I've now taken some advice and unless the house is exactly the same as it was when we lived there, then this could be misrepresentation of the property and I've been told that this would be unlawful. So unless they are removed and I will pursue the matter further with Trading Standards (or whoever is responsible)."

Bet they remove them

googler

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

Well the OP probably doesn't know how different or not it is now ??

Exactly. And neither can anyone posting here.

All they can see is their house as it was then! But it can't be exactly the same can it?

Why not? It was sold to the current owners in the middle of last year. It's perfectly possible they moved in, plonked their furniture down and haven't changed a thing.

When we moved into our current house, everything was still builder's magnolia, even though it had been occupied for 5 years since being built. That didn't change for another year and a half, until I buckled down to decorating - but even then, all that changed was the wall colour. It's perfectly possible that not even this has changed in the house we're discussing....

jamesd

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

graffiti, bodged DIY, walls up or down.

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

the house was too dark because of the floor coverings and very dark wood furniture. So even changing the carpets could make the property look very different and a potential buyer could be mislead into travelling to something that was not their cup of tea.

I agree that those things could be an issue.

My guess is that the head office will choose to play it safe and tell the agency to get new photos, regardless of whether they are necessary. And I do think they are necessary anyway even if accurate, because I think the use is an infringement of the copyright of the person who took the photos.

ValHaller

jamesd wrote: »

The original consent to publish threw away any potential privacy argument - you can't consent to have something private published then complain about breached privacy when it's republished. You already accepted that it was no longer to be private when you agreed to the initial publication.

The remedy is not to let the photographer or their camera into the place initially. Then the privacy is protected because they can't see it or photograph it.

I was not making a privacy argument. I was making an implied licence argument. And the implied licence is only for the OP's sale. Not for any subsequent sale of the same property by this agent.

outofmoney

I have no idea whether what the EA are doing is acceptable or not but wanted to add a comment.

We are currently looking for somewhere to rent. We see pictures online of lovely, newly renovated, or nicely decorated houses, Further investigation usually reveal these photos are several years old and often have been taken when the property was sold to the current LL. Having seen a couple of the properties we often find they are often not in the same condition as the photos indicate, hence why the old photos have been used.

Whether buying or renting I think the photos should give the viewer a realistic view of the property at the time of selling/buying. It is misleading to show one picture when the reality may be very different.

jamesd

ValHaller wrote: »

I was not making a privacy argument. I was making an implied licence argument. And the implied licence is only for the OP's sale. Not for any subsequent sale of the same property by this agent.

The post of yours I was quoting from and responding to had this from me and your reply:

jamesd wrote: »

You agreed to publication. Your right to privacy of what is in the photos vanished when you did

ValHaller wrote: »

Your argument falls down here. The agreement to publish was implied, not explicit. And the implied permission was only for the purposes of sale of OP's property. With the sale of that property, the implied permission has lapsed.

That certainly looks to me as though you were writing about some privacy-related licensing.

If the context is copyright licensing, I definitely agree that it's a breach of copyright because the original license is no longer valid and could never have bound the original photographer, who wasn't a party to the agreement with the estate agent and can't be covered by even any ongoing use permission it might contain.

jamesd

outofmoney wrote: »

We are currently looking for somewhere to rent. We see pictures online of lovely, newly renovated, or nicely decorated houses, Further investigation usually reveal these photos are several years old and often have been taken when the property was sold to the current LL. Having seen a couple of the properties we often find they are often not in the same condition as the photos indicate, hence why the old photos have been used.

Whether buying or renting I think the photos should give the viewer a realistic view of the property at the time of selling/buying. It is misleading to show one picture when the reality may be very different.

They are supposed to. The agents are not behaving properly by using misleading photos.