Reading mode: Light Dark

"Your house is about to be photographed"

Go to last post
... such a form as you present here may make someone feel good, but when you are in a public place, what your eyes can see, you can legally photograph and you can publish that photograph. Look at all the photographs that you see every day with houses in them. Do you think someone is getting these forms signed for each of those houses?

Nonsense.
 
I confess I read only a couple of posts before slipping my leash and posting myself.

I had a look at your profile, drh681, you look like my kind of person. Anyone who can successfully breed and train those ferocious pet rocks has my respect. I trust you have sufficient liability insurance.

Cheers, Sheldon
 
Load of paranoia if you ask me. Someone's taking the mickey here - "Canadian company" ; what a coincidence ...

I've read through the comments on the Slashdot forum and see most don't bother thinking outside the box any more.
Even if it were true:

Unless you stand awake in front of your property 24/7, there's no way you'll realise that a picture or even several have been taken of it so far and that it will continue regardless.

Even the largest manned Canadian (or other national) company wouldn't be able to even get 10% done without most of it being obsolete by the time they start on the next 10%.
This type of work is done locally for this very reason.

Any property agency/bank has a guy in the office these days with a digicam to record what they need from the other pavement and I'm sure this wonder-company from Canada or whatever will sell very little to them.

I've been doing it from a helicopter for the last 22 years (albeit in Europe)and apart from the odd idiot (there's always some in the pile) people like the idea of a decent aerial shot of their house and garden and usually laugh at the guy who thinks he can con them with one taken from across the street.

--
m.
http://www.pbase.com/m3photo
 
borderrose said:
You are about to be offered the high paying job of your dreams when
your prospective boss decides to do a quick google search on your
name just before offering you the job -- he finds an entry from a
former paramour's blog from 10 years ago describing (falsely) what
a deviant you are -- no job offer. How do you feel now about the
free availability of information.
Click to expand...
In that scenario, I'd feel lucky not to have ended up working for such a clearly incompetent manager.
Andy
 
Companies in the UK have been doing this for years. Arial photography of houses in the UK, all over the UK, but at times its also a full on top/front picture. They then come around a few months later & try to sell you the picture in a cheap frame.......
--
Your failure to be informed, does not make me a wacko.
John Loeffler.

equipment- lots of FulL FrAMe & whacky lenses. http://www.pbase.com/foodphoto/portfolio
 
...and stand in front of THEIR homes and take photographs.

What's good for the goose...

Brendan
--
No liberals were harmed in the making of this post.
 
Not sure if was mentioned in the thread here but there was a recent case that was won by a photographer who had been sued because he had taken a picture of an old house in a landscape and the owner of the house wanted money.

As the photographer did not step on the property it was esteemed OK to sell the picture for commercial use.

Mark

--
http://www.pbase.com/mholdef/galleries
 
Houses change their look every year or two, plus many houses can't be seen very well from the street, no photos of the interiors, no backyards, side views, out-of-season, etc... This database would be out of date as soon as it got started.

This whole things sounds more like a publicity stunt by the people involved - who knows what their motives are.

-Jonathan
Andre Remoe said:
If this is true, those who photograph all the houses around are
going to have a hell of a job. Imagine all those thousands and
thousands of images occupying imense amount of data storage. Then,
when they finish their job, they would have to start from square
one... After all, houses are demolished, painted, or completely
changed.

This is absolute nonsense. Throughout history, there was never a
need to have an image of every single house around - and humanity
survived! This is incredible!!!

Now, seriously, I believe that homes should only be photographed if
there is something very special about them, otherwise, it is a
waste of time having to archive them all.
Click to expand...
--
http://www.phlumf.com
 
Low-resolution, distant satellite imagery is one thing. Up close, at-your-front-door images using a high-resolution digital camera are another thing entirely.

Of course, the fortunate few who have their homes recessed on abundant acreage have nothing to worry about. Unfortunately, while we have a paltry 8 acres our house is on a public road.

Brendan
--
No liberals were harmed in the making of this post.
 
You've signed a contract with the real estate agent to list. No such contract here exists.
 
Rotsa Ruck, there are many, many places (gated communities) they won't be able to get into.
 
as a real estate appraiser I regularly (as in daily) took pictures of many, many houses which I had no contract whatsoever on. I took them from public streets and sidewalks, and was in full compliance with the law. It happens every day, and if you've ever bought or sold house, it's happened to you.

Michael
 
jjl said:
Houses change their look every year or two, plus many houses can't
be seen very well from the street, no photos of the interiors, no
backyards, side views, out-of-season, etc... This database would be
out of date as soon as it got started.
Click to expand...
Quite so. See my post, I'm sort of in the business.
jjl said:
This whole things sounds more like a publicity stunt by the people
involved - who knows what their motives are.
Click to expand...
Not exactly publicity stunt but - seen their website (although anyone can set one up to look real) and they have nothing to lose; they con local suckers into doing their job for them in return for an "ownership" promise of what they've produced!

--
m.
http://www.pbase.com/m3photo
 
It is not much different than going around the country and writing down every address that you pass, organizing the same information into a database, and then flogging it to rich suckers. As long as the photographers stay on public property, I don't believe there is a law in the land that makes gathering data in this way illegal.
Molokai_fiords said:
So, as defenders of the photographers right to photograph in/on
public places, what are your comments to this:

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/02/06/188251.shtml

""Photographers from a Canadian company are going house to house,
shooting pictures of every house in America, in hopes of building a
giant database that can be sold to banks, insurance companies, and
appraisal firms. While this activity is legal (as long as the
photographers don't trespass on private property to get their
shots), there are obviously concerns about security and privacy.
Considering that an individual can be detained and questioned by
the FBI for photographing a bridge in this country, why should this
Canadian company get a free pass? Tinfoil hat aside, something
seems very, very fishy here.""
Click to expand...
--
Laurence

My idea of good company is the fellowship of clever, well-informed people, who have a great deal of conversation and liberality of ideas.

Jane Austen

http://www.pbase.com/lmatson/root
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/root
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd10
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd9
http://www.beachbriss.com
 
While I am as staunch of a privacy advocate as anyone. I'm personally not worried at all about this. My house cannot be seen (or photographed) from public property. :)

I do know that often a photographer needs a property release to use a photo of some property for commercial purposes. I wonder how that would apply here. My guess is it wouldn't since it isn't for advertising. Just a guess though.

DIPics
Laurence Matson said:
Molokai_fiords said:
So, as defenders of the photographers right to photograph in/on
public places, what are your comments to this:

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/02/06/188251.shtml

""Photographers from a Canadian company are going house to house,
shooting pictures of every house in America, in hopes of building a
giant database that can be sold to banks, insurance companies, and
appraisal firms. While this activity is legal (as long as the
photographers don't trespass on private property to get their
shots), there are obviously concerns about security and privacy.
Considering that an individual can be detained and questioned by
the FBI for photographing a bridge in this country, why should this
Canadian company get a free pass? Tinfoil hat aside, something
seems very, very fishy here.""
Click to expand...
--
Laurence

My idea of good company is the fellowship of clever, well-informed
people, who have a great deal of conversation and liberality of
ideas.

Jane Austen

http://www.pbase.com/lmatson/root
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/root
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd10
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd9
http://www.beachbriss.com
Click to expand...
 
you're right on!

Not that scary to me perhaps because I know all that info is easily available. And no, my home is not listed for sale...this is all public record.

Rather than banter about how this is all illegal...prove it and put your money where your mouth is. You won't be able to.

Just because you don't think it should be legal doesn't make it so.
--
Seriousness & competence are different
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top