December 3rd, 2014
Dave from New Zealand asked the following:
Any feedback on how far this has gone in the USA, I think its a bit over the top re “grass” ( attached photo from a Property Weekly in NZ had label on the grass “digitally enhanced grass”) … Surely this is not in the same class as Power Lines as in the removal of them from property shoot?
Reason I am asking was it only seems a year or two back when someone in Canada or US was driving around in a truck with a big tank on the back and they were painting lawns green specifically for RE shoots.
Over the years, we’ve had a lot of heated discussions here on the PFRE blog about ethics of image modification in the context of real estate photography. I think the subject is important enough that I have a separate page dedicated to summarizing the consensus that has evolved out of these discussions over the years.
Here is a general outline of that consensus:
- Real estate photographers typically work for the listing agent and in some cases will be asked to modify photographs of properties for sale.
- Listing agents everywhere have a legal responsibility to not “materially misrepresent” a property. That’s a meaningful expression to lawyers since it keeps popping up every time this subject is talked about.
- Modifying or removing temporary objects like garbage cans, cars, overcast skies etc is customary and generally not considered materially misrepresenting the property.
- Removing permanent objects like power lines, telephone poles, neighboring homes etc. are customarily considered materially misrepresenting the property because they hide undesirable permanent property features.
- Landscaping seems to be an area where not everyone agrees. Landscaping seems to be in between permanent and temporary. Many people believe that fixing defects in the grass or landscaping is OK whereas others believe it is not OK. When there is some question about if a feature is permanent or temporary it’s safest to treat it as a permanent feature.
In summary the photographer is working for the listing agent, not the potential buyer and representation of the property is the listing agent’s legal responsibility, not the photographers. However, prudence suggests that if the photographer is asked to modify photographs they believe materially misrepresents the property, they should document in writing the fact they are modifying the photograph at the agents request.