Real Estate photographers and malpractice: So I have been house hunting. The first step is looking at photos of houses online. I saw a couple of houses that looked great and I drove an...

Vietnam Vet

So I have been house hunting. The first step is looking at photos of houses online. I saw a couple of houses that looked great and I drove an hour to see them. The reality is the houses suck. I know your job is to create interest in the property, but at what point do you call it photographic malpractice?

ClarkG Loc: Southern Indiana USA

Curious? How did the photographs portray the houses differently? Were the photographs altered?

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Well, if there is a difference between the house and the picture, you have a right to complain. By "difference," I mean something substantial, not just a clean yard and neat appearance. If the picture indicates that you're getting more than the house offers, that could be considered - whatever legal term someone can apply to it.

If a falling chimney or collapsed front step appears to be perfect n the photo, that's cause for complaint.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Are the houses listed by a real estate company, or being sold by owner? What website were these photos on? What are the specifics of the "suck" compared to the photos? If the houses are listed by an agency, did you complain to the agent or company owner? Do you really think it's in a company's best interest to mis-represent their properties in the way you imply? Do you know there are codes of ethics (for companies that belong to the National Association of Realtors), along with state laws requiring disclosure of condition and other aspects? Offenses result in fines, loss of license and more.

johngault007 Loc: Florida Panhandle

Back in December we were on the house hunting kick to get out of rental and find a permanent place to lay our heads. Most of the photos we saw on the major real estate sites were not a up-to-minute representation of the houses we saw. Most realtors, I suspect, use older images to save a couple pennies and really don't show the current state these houses are in. For the most part, it was simply cosmetic or furniture differences, but we never saw houses that were misrepresented by fake or modified pictures.

Is it a morale practice, I personally don't think so, but it just forced us to get out and look at all the properties in greater detail to make sure we were buying exactly what we wanted.

alx Loc: NJ

Photographic malpractice would only be if the photographer failed to deliver. This is a classic case of "BUYER BEWARE". The photographer's "job" was to deliver prospective buyers for the client, be it the owner or the realtor. You showed up. They delivered.

Malpractice would only apply if you had been the one who hired the photographer to act on your behalf.

It might "suck", but that is true of most things in life. :(

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

johngault007 wrote:

...Is it a morale practice, I personally don't think so, but it just forced us to get out and look at all the properties in greater detail to make sure we were buying exactly what we wanted.

There are buyers' agents whose legal obligation is to represent you and do much of the work you apparently took on for yourself. Their share of the commission comes from the listing company; you don't pay.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

alx wrote:

Photographic malpractice would only be if the photographer failed to deliver. This is a classic case of "BUYER BEWARE". The photographer's "job" was to deliver prospective buyers for the client, be it the owner or the realtor. You showed up. They delivered.

Malpractice would only apply if you had been the one who hired the photographer to act on your behalf.

It might "suck", but that is true of most things in life. :(

Have you worked for a real estate company in the past 30 years? My eight years' experience in the industry says you're wrong about the "buyer beware" reality, as evidenced by laws and competition among companies for listings and for buyers. As I said to the OP, how is it in a company's best interest to piss off potential buyers?

johngault007 Loc: Florida Panhandle

Linda From Maine wrote:

There are buyers' agents whose legal obligation is to represent you and do much of the work you apparently took on for yourself. Their share of the commission comes from the listing company; you don't pay.

We had a buyer agent and she was fantastic, but we always went with her to every property. Mainly because we were very picky, and we knew pictures on the website weren't 100% accurate. Even though we visited every property, she earned her commission. We must have looked at 20 or so houses before we found...The One.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

johngault007 wrote:

We had a buyer agent and she was fantastic, but we always went with her to every property. Mainly because we were very picky, and we knew pictures on the website weren't 100% accurate. Even though we visited every property, she earned her commission. We must have looked at 20 or so houses before we found...The One.

alx Loc: NJ

Linda From Maine wrote:

Have you worked for a real estate company in the past 30 years? My eight years' experience in the industry says you're wrong about the "buyer beware" reality, as evidenced by laws and competition among companies for listings and for buyers. As I said to the OP, how is it in a company's best interest to piss off potential buyers?

What you are talking about applies to the REALTOR. Photographic malpractice applies to a photographer. If the property sucks, that is a subjective interpretation on the part of the potential buyer.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

alx wrote:

What you are talking about applies to the REALTOR. Photographic malpractice applies to a photographer. If the property sucks, that is a subjective interpretation on the part of the potential buyer.

I agree about subjective interpretation (our OP's "reality"), but the photographer is working for the owner or real estate agent. If it's an agent/company, it is their responsibility to ensure the listing information (including visual) is accurate prior to posting on their own website or multiple listing sites such as realtor.com.

Vietnam Vet's topic is lacking in several ways - the property could be for sale by owner and posted online with his/her own photos! Normally, I just roll my eyes and ignore topics like this, but I have close friends and many acquaintances in the industry - all of whom are hardworking and honest - so I felt the need to add some facts (real facts, not the fake ones) to the thread

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Vietnam Vet wrote:

So I have been house hunting. The first step is looking at photos of houses online. I saw a couple of houses that looked great and I drove an hour to see them. The reality is the houses suck. I know your job is to create interest in the property, but at what point do you call it photographic malpractice?

Hmmm, ever compared a McDonalds burger to the poster on the wall????

Vietnam Vet

MT Shooter wrote:

Hmmm, ever compared a McDonalds burger to the poster on the wall????

That's exactly what I am talking about

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Vietnam Vet wrote:

That's exactly what I am talking about

There simply is no truth in advertising, not in images anyway. Written physical descriptions are different. They cannot tell you a property has a pool and you find out the septic tank has caved in.