Another perspective on comp pics

[ockyappraiser]

I talked with a homeowner some time ago in an upscale subdivsion that was in the process of suing a developer. The developer had taken pictures of this homeowner's house and used them in his advertising brochures without permission of the homeowner. The homeowner was suing for compensation as the developer had used his house for purposes of making money without his permission or just compensation.

When we take an original comp pic are we not doing the same? We are putting this pic in a report for the purpose of making money. . .and "selling" that report to the intended user.

Think of the people that take pictures of your house. . .the PVA has permission by rights of taxation. The agent had WRITTEN permission from you to take the pic and put in the MLS. The appraiser has permission to take pics of the subject property.

NO PERMISSION IS GRANTED TO TAKE PICS OF THE COMPS. They are not "in the public domain". The appraiser is taking pics and using them "for profit purposes".

The requirement is to examine the comps from the street. There is no requirement for original pics. MLS pics and PVA pics are available.

Let me put this another way. . .if your fee for the appraisal was $100,000, not $350, and pics of these houses were in the report. . . .and if the appraisal was made available by the subject owner and made public to help sell his house at some point. . .and if the people that owned the houses used in the comp pics saw the appraisal and realized the money that was made. . .in part with pictures of their home. . .do you think there would be litigation?

Go back to my example at the top. This was litigated in my area when a developer took the pic and used it in his brochures. What is different when the appraiser takes the comp pics and uses them "for profit purposes?". Remember your certified classes and exam: we don't have police powers, and the bundle of rights includes privacy and just compensation.

 

[Lawrence R.]

That all may be technically correct, but nobody is going to sue an appraiser over a 350 dollar fee. Besides, nobody gets 350 anymore, right?:new_all_coholic:

Then how would the homeowner even know who it was taking pictures? Also, I think that Google Earth and Zaio would have been sued to death over this by now.

I think that Google may have been sued and won? That is pure speculation, but I think I read that somewhere.

 

[Virgil Brown]

permission

Any photo taken from the street is in the public domain, permission is polite but not required.

 

[nauthead]

I do not believe there is any law violated when you take a picture from the street, provided that street is public. Professional photographers and news crews take pictures and/or shoot film of celebrities every day.

 

[c w d]

There are no laws preventing anyone from taking, using and selling for massively incredible profits pictures of people's property as seen from a public place. Hell, you could do it from the city's right of way in the person's lawn.

How would you think such a law would affect anyone selling satellite imagery, or surveillance camera images, news images, etc, etc, etc. You can't hardly take a photo outside without imaging someone else's property.

 

[ockyappraiser]

"Any photo taken from the street is in the public domain, permission is polite but not required."

Not agreeing or disagreeing. Just stating that in the case of the guy I talked to, it resulted in litigation for compensation when a developer used pic of his house in a brochure.

 

[Charles Knutson]

I did a report on a home in a gated community, and was told by the guard that photos of comps were strictly forbidden, and I'd be arrested if I took any.

In this case, the streets were private and not public, so the HOA had the right to forbid photos.

 

[Michigan CG]

If you can see it you can photograph it. You cannot be arrested for taking pictures on a public street, one cannot have the expectation of privacy.

A few years back, Barbara Streisand tried to sue a photographer for taking pictures of her home which is behind a high fence. She lost and had to pay all attorney fees for the photographer.

 

[Mike Boyd]

I do not believe there is any law violated when you take a picture from the street, provided that street is public. Professional photographers and news crews take pictures and/or shoot film of celebrities every day.

What if it is a private street? In or out of a gated community in which you access by means of a code you obtained for another report?

I happen to agree with the reference to privacy laws. In our reports we not only provide a photo of the comp, but the sales price, the terms of sale, concessions, and the date of sale. Yes, it is only going to our client but THEY can give it to whomever they want to.

I think we are on thin ice by making public details that should be private. FHA admits that they want original photos only to PROVE that we drove by the comparables. I suspect that is all lender's reasoning. I don't think that is reason enough to violate a homeowner's privacy. Through the years I have had many homeowners object vehemently to my taking a photo of their home and using it as a comp. We should lobby to be allowed to use MLS photos in all circumstances when they are available.

 

[Steve Metz]

Here is one there are some gated communities in my area where the county maintains the streets according to county records but I was not allowed in the community to take comp photos. I should try to get in again be refused and sue the HOA. On my next trip doing a couple of REO's I was allowed in as I was an agent for the bank on the repoed properties. I did 30 REO's in that community in the last year.