No, it's only false advertising if the buyer purchases the property
based solely on the photograph, and only a literal idiot* would do
that. There can be no protection against idiocy as idiots are so
ingenious.
All it does is waste one's time visiting the place to see what it
actually looks like.
As such it's counter productive. I wouldn't trust the representations
of any property the agency responsible put forward about any other
property after that.
Hell I wouldn't trust them to tell me the sky was blue even with
photographic evidence.
On 2/18/2016 9:28 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Check it out:
http://petapixel.com/2016/02/16/real-estate-photo-illegal-false-advertising/
I'm pretty sure that there's no Photoshop involved here: The
photographer just got very close with a wide angle lens and then
positioned the camera fairly low to the ground. (You can see from
other photos that the p[hotographer would have to have been *very*
close to the house to be on the lawn.)
*As a term of art in Psychology/Psychiatry.
--
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve
immortality through not dying.
-- Woody Allen
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
