We just ran across these absolutely horrible real estate photos. What makes them so terrible is that we found them all on one listing. Never before have I seen a collection of almost every fatal photography flaw in one place. I say “almost” because the focus was actually pretty good so the realtor (these certainly weren’t done by a professional) must have been using an auto-focus camera. And none of the photos were turned upside down (see it all the time) – so they missed that screw up too. But there are plenty of other entertaining mistakes.
The subject property actually recently sold in one of the western suburbs as a short sale. With these photos it never had a chance at getting a decent price. Why on earth any bank would accept any offer made on a listing like this is beyond me. I would have told the seller to get a real realtor.
In all fairness though this house was handicapped from day one because it was apparently built on a slant on the side of a hill. Imagine mowing the lawn or trying to take a bath. However, your kids will grow up with a keen appreciation of gravity. Considering what a similar building did for the town of Pisa you may also be able to generate some serious tourism revenue.
In the interest of full disclosure the listing agent apparently wanted to make sure that everyone noted the angular challenge of the property so they actually included this photograph in the rotation twice. I thought that was an especially nice touch so I’m duplicating it here as well so you get the full effect.
Moving into the kitchen you get to see exactly how you can be expected to live here, with dirty dishes piled up and not a square inch of counter space available. There must not be a coat closet in the house either. And the refrigerator comes with a complete set of artwork.
There might not be much in the way of clothes closets either since the sellers store their pants draped over the family room sofa. We get to see two different angles of this room. The first one is off-kilter too.
This bedroom shot is rather interesting. No need to make the bed. Heck, it doesn’t even have sheets on the mattress. Wait a second…is someone asleep in there under the covers? Also notice how the door frame is bent (this is actually called barrel distortion and is caused by using a low end lens or a zoom lens that is supposed to cover wide angles).
The home apparently also comes with a dark room. Of course, with the focus on the sofa and absolutely no perspective on the room itself, we have absolutely no idea of what is being offered.
The weight room is also apprently pretty dark and we have no idea what the actual room looks like. With the focus on the weights should we assume the weights convey with the property?
Moving on to the bathroom we have a great head on shot of a shower wall at a slight angle.
Another bathroom shot is in keeping with the dark motif. The full set of toiletries on the vanity accentuate the fact that there really is no counter space.
A word to the wise: check out your realtor’s photos on their previous listings before you sign a listing agreement with them. If they are this sloppy with their photos chances are they are going to be sloppy with every aspect of the transaction.
It’s funny I came across this article. I was looking at listings today and thought the exact same thing to myself. Realtors seriously need to take a photography class or have the work contracted to a real photographer. I swear most of the pictures look like they were taken from a cell phone, and not even a good one.
Yeah, professional photos are the way to go and they’re not that expensive.
Hey, at least the house looks relatively clean. It’s almost looks as if the realtor happened to stop by in the middle of laundry day.
Three highly relevant questions, Gary.
1. Did you request permission to redistribute these photos?
2. Do you know for a fact that they were the Realtor’s photos and not supplied by the owner?
3. Do you or your company compete with this Realtor for business?
As any good photographer knows, you can get what you call “barrel distortion” from a more expensive wide-angle lens simply by tilting it. Happens to me all the time with a $1,200 lens.
@Joe, does he really need permission since 1) these are on public websites and he could easily just include the URL and 2) It doesn’t seem like there is any way for a reader to figure out the address of this home
The owner of the photos doesn’t surrender all rights to them simply by posting them on a public Web site. The owner retains, among other rights, the right to distribution and redistribution.
I’d have to have more facts to reach a definitive conclusion but my first impression is that the odds are high that Gary has violated the owner’s copyrights in these photos.
Gary could have avoided issues by linking to the photos in place rather than copying them – but then he’d have to have the guts to confront this Realtor directly rather than by indirection. It isn’t that hard to find the original listing, which makes the notion that he’s not identifying the property difficult to justify.
Copyright violations can carry serious penalties and everyone needs to take the issue far more seriously. I can assure you that if Gary ever copied one of our photos onto a server he controls without our ejxplicit permission I’d give him an expensive and painful lesson in what the law is.
If you follow my previous exchanges with Gary, you’ll note that he has a pretty cavalier approach to legal issues.
.
Sorry about the typos.
Joe,
I think that readers that follow your exchanges with Gary (or anyone else) realize that your extreme bias and ignorance of the facts (and in this case the law) are the simple result of your “clients” paying you to “participate in real estate conversations around the Web” especially those that may counter your clients “unique message”.
However, contrary, once again, Gary (or anyone) posting these images and commenting on them does NOT constitute a copyright violation (for many many different reasons).
As copyright law is pretty much the same as when you were a lawyer, I have to wonder……Do you also “represent” the real estate agent that posted those pics like the ones involved with the issues at 1000 West Lofts?
Eitherway, Gary, don’t worry about such threats as the only “expensive and painful lesson” would be Joe and any suit immediately tossed by the judge (via a simple motion) and then being force to write YOU (and your insurance company) a check for filing such a spurious lawsuit.
Brad
Owner Unit 541
1000 W. Washington
P.S. Joe, do you have executed location image agreements in place for the photos on your site? What about the talent agreements for those that appear in your videos? What a joke, not only pure ignorance but also pure hyprocicy. e.
The only one who has a “cavalier approach to legal issues” – of anything on an objective and factual basis, is you.
Brad,
I keep abreast of changes in copyright laws, because they
Joe,
My basis of knowledge regarding copyright law is based on over 20 years of copyright use / licensing experience on projects and clients (including one of your own so-called long-term clients) on a much more critical basis (and exponentially greater budgets) than your own.
Yet, once again, you want to challenge my knowledge about an issue again when EACH and EVERY time you have done so before, you were proven 100% wrong and are the one who looks like a fool.
The ONLY thing your prior post states accurately was that
Brad,
You’ve heaved up such a wall of outright crap and fantasy that I have no intention of responding to it in detail.
I didn’t respond to your question because it was too loony, given the fats of what I do, to take seriously.
Your knowledge of copyright laws, including provisons regarding damages, is non-existent.
You have no idea what my busines is. If you think you’ve handled larger budgets for my clients than my firm has, you’re flagrantly delusional.
Get out your shovel and start heaving again. You’ve had my final words to you on this thread.
Joe –
To any who read this can easily determine that that ONLY reason you didn’t (can’t) respond to my question is that any response would simply prove your own ignorance / hypocrisy.
So, rather than even provide a single supporting objective and verifiable fact, once again, you “get out your shovel and start heaving (accusations / threats) again”.
If you expect me (or anyone) to believe that your knowledge of copyright laws is more extensive than the leading copyright scholars / attorneys / law schools in the US “you’re flagrantly delusional”.
ROFLMAO.
Brad
Owner Unit 541
1000 W. Washington
P.S. I KNOW exactly what you do just as I know exactly what your business as does (along with anyone else who has done a simple google on you and watched your videos).
P.S.S. You have no idea of who I am or what I have ever done / handled. The simple irrefutable fact is that my experience (including working on projects for your own so-called clients) involves budgets that are exponentially larger than you or your firm ever has been responsible for (or is capable of handling). Even the FIRST project I ever handled (for Reef Baker) when I was 16 (yes, 16 years old) had a $1M+ budget. I would suggest you take your “outright crap and fantasy” about my background, knowledge and experience somewhere else as you will just make yourself look like a bigger fool than you already have. Although, I must admit that your
I’ve for years wanted to write or post a blog like this because I too believe the message needs to get out that not all marketing efforts are created equal however I’ve resisted the urge because of a the legal and proprietary consequences of redistributing another brokerages photos without consent would be risky. If someone uses mine I call the legal department to have then retracted for many reasons. Of course mine would not end up an article like this because of my shared belief with yours that these kinds of images are not effective in selling a home. I’ve had other agents use my exterior images and our local board will issue fines for this and interior photos as well I am quite sure.
Jim G