Why I Use MLS Photos

[DMZwerg]

I couldn't vote because the only time I use an MLS photo is if the property is not visible from the street, there are people in the yard/drive, or something is blocking the house (truck, etc).

I don't even then.
I have used handy trees, cars, etc., to HIDE people in the yard and/or came back later, or even left the photo out with the reason mentioned, but I don't use MLS photos in my reports because I don't own the copyright.

Only use I have for MLS photos is to help confirm which house it is, or to determine what changes/updates have been made since the property was purchased ... and occasionally the MLS photo is pure fiction. (wrong house, wrong street, an older MLS picture, or even not even close).

 

[DMZwerg]

I never said my friend didn't drive the comps and view them, I said she uses MLS photos. I've been using DataMaster, which can import MLS photos faster than I can copy/paste my photos. And you would turn me in because you make the unsupported ASSumption that if you use an MLS photo, it's because you didn't take your own?

No, I would turn them in for copyright infringement. This is a violation of the USPAP 2010-2011 Ethics Rule "An appraiser: ... must not engage in criminal conduct;"

Most people using MLS photos would either claim ignorance or "fair use". Well, take a look at this page ( http://www.copyright.gov/help/FAQ/FAQ-fairuse.html ) and do a page search on "photo". You will find a section on "My local copying store will not make reproductions of old family photographs." Here is some extractions from that repy ...

"In the case of photographs, it is sometimes difficult to determine who owns the copyright and there may be little or no information about the owner on individual copies. Ownership of a “copy” of a photograph – the tangible embodiment of the “work” – is distinct from the “work” itself – the intangible intellectual property. The owner of the “work” is generally the photographer or, in certain situations, the employer of the photographer. Even if a person hires a photographer to take pictures of a wedding, for example, the photographer will own the copyright in the photographs unless the copyright in the photographs is transferred, in writing and signed by the copyright owner, to another person."

"There may be situations in which the reproduction of a photograph may be a “fair use” under the copyright law. Information about fair use may be found at: www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html. However, even if a person determines a use to be a “fair use” under the factors of section 107 of the Copyright Act, a copy shop or other third party need not accept the person’s assertion that the use is noninfringing. Ultimately, only a federal court can determine whether a particular use is, in fact, a fair use under the law."

​

Remember that the architectural exception appears to only the rights to take your own photographs from public places, and not to apply to the use of other people's photographs.

Bottom line: NEVER use the photograph's of another unless you have transfer of rights in writing.

 

[Kevin Mc]

Maybe your pool of reviews is already laden with bad appraisals.

Of course it is. Some are complex oddballs but many are flat out garbage. The proliferation of MLS photos on garbage reports is common. I work in urban and surburban areas. There is no travel issue. Most comps are within half a mile. It is a laziness issue. Appraisers signing they did inspect the comps from the street and then using MLS photos in my markets are usually (99%) full of shtt. I understand sometimes folks add additional comps after the field work is done but I'm not talking about that. I am talking typical lazy skippy hacks.

 

[DMZwerg]

Sadly, the issue is complicated by the stupidity of AMC slash "clients". We had a flat roof property that was purchased, then a roof added. So...if you don't have a picture contemporaneous with the SALE you have a misleading photo. It's a choice isn't it? I had a picture I took at the time of the sale. But I would have used an MLS photo to represent what it looked like at the time of sale.

Before somebody jumps on Terrel for including an MLS photo in an open forum, realize that he is not getting paid to post what he did and is using it as an example.

Given what I know I would not use the picture even then unless I could get permission, and would just discuss the difference in a text format. If I were stipped I would try to get the listing broker's permission to use the MLS photo (in writing, or email me a copy of their original photo with permission to use it if they would) explaining why I was being requested to include such in my report. But then, due to a former job I held in publishing I would likely be toast if the subject of copyright ever came up (aka, I know too much).

 

[Kevin Mc]

I detailed in another thread certain areas in CT. where the vast majority of homes are hidden up long, private, wooded driveways. Using your logic not only should I turn these jobs down but theoretically they CAN NOT be appraised by anyone unless each and every comp is personally inspected. Good luck contacting those owners, making those arrangements, and getting permission for each and every comp.

I recently appraised a $10million+ home. My appraisal included 5 pictures of driveways. None were visable from the street. My report also included 5 MLS photos cleary marked MLS photos. I understand the use of MLS photos in this case. i also understand the use in driving the comparables. Unfortunately there is a whole other school out there of corner cutting hacks who just don't get, understand or care about doing the work the way it is suppose to be done. I can post on here until I'm blue in the face and they still won't get it. Basics are beyond them. They are a problem in this industry and they do it with everyone's blessing as long as it is fast and cheap. End of story.

 

[DMZwerg]

I recently appraised a $10million+ home. My appraisal included 5 pictures of driveways. None were visable from the street. My report also included 5 MLS photos cleary marked MLS photos. I understand the use of MLS photos in this case. i also understand the use in driving the comparables.

I would still contact the individual listing brokers before doing so or check with an attorney as to whether or not that constitutes "fair use", but it is very understandable as the exterior "inspection" you relied on is primarily based on the photographic evidence in MLS and not by choice.

 

[Peter LeQuire]

Delta85 - "Scope of work, if necessary, can be altered as long as you explain in detail what you attempted and what you could/could not do."

Really? I believe even a casual reading of the scope of work and the second paragraph on Page 4 of the URAR would lead a reasonable person to a different conclusion, unless you can effectively argue that not looking at the comps is an acceptable expansion of the scope of work.

I certainly agree that if someone can't arrange entrance in a restricted community, is faced with a "no trespassing" sign, or is intimidated by a long driveway s/he will have to do something else to provide photos. I'd guess that, if that were the case, one could possible assert that looking at the MLS photos satisfies the requirement to inspect the comparables, though I'd speculate that appraisers who don't inspect their comps, whether they attribute their photos or not, don't disclaim that part of the scope of work that says that they DID inspect them.

It may not be "misleading" if an appraiser clearly labels photos that s/he did not take, and it may not be "misleading" if an appraiser - in clear violation of that scope of work and the clear statement that the scope of work can't be modified - reports that s/he did not, in fact, inspect the comparables. That said, the fact of disclosing that the mandated scope of work hasn't been complied with is a pretty flimsy veil to try to hide behind if challenged.

It plays fast and loose with known requirements to willfully ignore them - there is real risk in doing so.

NC - Is common sense allowed? Perhaps that's set out in USPOOP's Certification #26 - you know, the one right below #25, which says something about intentional or negligent misrepresentation, civil and criminal penalties, fines and imprisonment......that sort of thing.:icon_question:

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

occasionally the MLS photo is pure fiction

One of our Realtors uses the same pasture scene for every vacant ag tract he has..

DMZ - we have better photos on our assessors website and I would tend to use those in lieu of MLS pix...and they are public domain...

Of course, I still want one of those little remote airplanes with a camera...
http://www.draganfly.com/ anybody wanna loan me $15K?
I love the still shots
http://www.draganfly.com/uav-helicopter/draganflyer-x8/gallery/pictures/
I'd luv to buzz the neighborhood behind the gate

 

[residentialguy]

I like that dragonfly :Emoticon_hug:

 

[DMZwerg]

One of our Realtors uses the same pasture scene for every vacant ag tract he has..

Yeah, ya gotta love that.
Then there are the "new construction" photos and so on. I knew an appraiser who, if he needed a picture, would go a block away from his office and take a picture of a model match ... he isn't appraising any more.

DMZ - we have better photos on our assessors website and I would tend to use those in lieu of MLS pix...and they are public domain...

Public domain is good, but make certain it is. GIS systems may well not be, depending if they are public or privately held, and most professional maps have deliberate errors in areas (intentional, to be able to prove their works and make it copyrightable, if I heard correctly). Google & Bing both have copyright notices on their maps as I recall. Therefore it is often best to get aerials through your software provider (and let them handle the liability if any) or take your own.

Of course, I still want one of those little remote airplanes with a camera...
http://www.draganfly.com/ anybody wanna loan me $15K?
I love the still shots
http://www.draganfly.com/uav-helicopter/draganflyer-x8/gallery/pictures/
I'd luv to buzz the neighborhood behind the gate

Also, being able to "write off" a hobby as a business expense ...

I keep telling my mentor he needs to get a boat for all those lakefront appraisals he does. :laugh: