said by nvmp7 :

In our MLS we can only upload 8 photos. There is no way to post enough photos to cover what may potentially turn someone on/off. Everyone's just a little bit different.

said by Splitpair :

Then legally you have moved from a photograph of the property to a representation of the property.

Wayne

said by B52GUNR :

I think it needs to be criminal, to be honest. We have young girls trying to look like these models at great risk to their health and the models don't even look like how they are portrayed. I think it's not only unethical, but disgusting.

said by major marco :

Secondly, irrespective of the questionable ethics, if you buy a home based on a picture and don't bother to actually check out what you're buying with you're own eyes, then you deserve everything you get.

said by Mauricio9 :

Let's see if an extreme analogy helps put this into perspective. Many German nuclear scientists during World War II left Germany or deliberately slowed down their work once they understood how their research could be used to build a nuclear bomb. Was it their responsibility to determine what their funny-moustached "customer" wanted to use their work for? Would it have been "unethical" to continue purely abstract science?

said by major marco :

That's what your eyes are for. [...] LOOK at what you're buying before you sign on the dotted line.

Frankly, I could make an argument that a Pshopped property is no different from the actual property itself simply because it is up to the buyer to due diligence the property before he buys it. The seller is under no duty to disclose that there are power lines/utilities nearby.

said by Mauricio9 :

The papers you are signing do not describe the neighboring properties or the paths of powerlines outside the property in question - those things nonetheless can have a large impact on property values.

said by jjoshua :

So it's the photoshopper's responsibility to determine how the image will be used and to make an ethical decision about taking every job and which enhancements can be done?

said by Splitpair :

No an artists rendering is clearly just that. To try to do the same with a photograph that is not clearly marked as a representation or as edited is to mislead others in a less than ethical manner.

said by jjoshua :

Let's say a homeowner wants powerlines removed from a picture so they can brag to their friends about what a nice house they have? Now is it unethical?

said by Mauricio9 :

Yes. Not illegal though.

said by tmpchaos :

In many ways, just like the artist's renderings of new construction...

said by Splitpair :

Then legally you have moved from a photograph of the property to a representation of the property.

Wayne

said by jjoshua :

How about if the person uses the photo for an on-line dating service? Then it becomes unethical?

said by Mauricio9 :

No. You are not buying the models that appear in ads.

said by pete424 :

I don't put trees or grass where there is none but I might make the toys in the backyard go away.

said by quatrix :

How is that any different? Whether you take the photo from a different angle, stand with the wires behind you, or edit the finished photo, you're still consciously trying to deceive people.

said by jjoshua :

[So ethical vs. unethical depends on the $ amount? Ouch.

said by jjoshua :

So ethical vs. unethical depends on the $ amount? Ouch.

said by bobrk :

No, one is an entertainment, and the other is a representation of real property for sale. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars will be shoveled around in wheelbarrows for many months by many people with a lot on the line. It's way different.

said by Mauricio9 :

If you can't get a clearer view without the power lines by walking around or changing lenses, then the clearer view does not exist. Part of the value of the property is determined by how it looks from outside, power lines and all. If after putting on your superwide angle you still can't get a view without the power lines, then it means that they are going to be in your field of view no matter where you stand.

said by EGeezer :

I suppose you could add a clause in your contract where your customer acknowledges the photograph(s) is altered, assumes all liability in the use of the photograph,specifically releases you from any claims of damage in its(their) use and agrees to pay you all costs you may incur in any litigation.

said by jjoshua :

So compare this with the videos showing how models can be enhanced before they go onto the cover of a fashion magazine. We are all amazed by those videos and the end results and wish that we had those kinds of skills.

Same thing, right? Still unethical?

said by B52GUNR :

... I've actually had them ask me to clone out damage to surfaces, "transplant" trees, add foliage, etc. I refuse to do it.

said by jjoshua :

So compare this with the videos showing how models can be enhanced before they go onto the cover of a fashion magazine. We are all amazed by those videos and the end results and wish that we had those kinds of skills.

Same thing, right? Still unethical?

said by Mauricio9 :

I think you are confusing 'unethical' with 'illegal.' While it is not illegal to photoshop on a customer's request, it is unethical to do so if you know that your work will be used to mislead other people. For a realtor to misrepresent a property is both unethical and illegal.

said by jjoshua :

Is it unethical for you to photoshop as per your customers' requests? I don't think so.

Is it unethical for the realtor to misrepresent a property or not to say that an image has been modified? Yes.

said by 35375105 :

But if they photoshopped the powerlines out because they don't want the buyer to know it's there, then yes that is very unethical.

said by 35375105 :

Dunno depends on how it is intended. Like for instance if they photoshopped the power lines out to get a clearer view of the property itself, then I don't really think it's unethical.

But if they photoshopped the powerlines out because they don't want the buyer to know it's there, then yes that is very unethical.