Dogs Sleeping Forum

xtras1 wrote:

Maddog wrote:

xtras1 wrote:

Cactus Jack wrote:

xtras1 wrote:Maddog still interested to know why you are cruising outside people's property taking photos... answer the question god dammit

He works for Google Earth -

Here's of of his

hahah! i am curious to know seems odd, hasn't got the tenants permission sneaks 'snaps' then dashes off

Why does an appraiser even take photos of homes?



When appraising a residential property, one of the main ways appraisers develop an opinion of value, is by comparing their subject to other homes similar to the subject property that have recently sold. In a typical refinance or purchase transaction, the form we use states that we have inspected the neighborhood, and each of the comparable sales from at least the street. The best way we can prove we have examined a comparable sale is by taking a photograph of the home. But more importantly, most banks require original photographs of comparable sales. That means we can’t just rip a photo off the MLS and call it a day.




https://riverfrontappraisals.com/dont-s ... appraiser/

Aah thank you, nothing as sinister as I thought then

Maddog wrote:

xtras1 wrote:

Cactus Jack wrote:

xtras1 wrote:Maddog still interested to know why you are cruising outside people's property taking photos... answer the question god dammit

He works for Google Earth -

Here's of of his

hahah! i am curious to know seems odd, hasn't got the tenants permission sneaks 'snaps' then dashes off

Why does an appraiser even take photos of homes?



When appraising a residential property, one of the main ways appraisers develop an opinion of value, is by comparing their subject to other homes similar to the subject property that have recently sold. In a typical refinance or purchase transaction, the form we use states that we have inspected the neighborhood, and each of the comparable sales from at least the street. The best way we can prove we have examined a comparable sale is by taking a photograph of the home. But more importantly, most banks require original photographs of comparable sales. That means we can’t just rip a photo off the MLS and call it a day.




https://riverfrontappraisals.com/dont-s ... appraiser/

xtras1 wrote:

Cactus Jack wrote:

xtras1 wrote:Maddog still interested to know why you are cruising outside people's property taking photos... answer the question god dammit

He works for Google Earth -

Here's of of his

hahah! i am curious to know seems odd, hasn't got the tenants permission sneaks 'snaps' then dashes off

Cactus Jack wrote:

xtras1 wrote:Maddog still interested to know why you are cruising outside people's property taking photos... answer the question god dammit

He works for Google Earth -

Here's of of his

xtras1 wrote:Maddog still interested to know why you are cruising outside people's property taking photos... answer the question god dammit

drum wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Cactus Jack wrote:https://www.rte.ie/entertainment/2021/0712/1234518-dua-lipa-sued-for-posting-paparazzi-picture-of-herself/

Dua Lipa is being sued for posting a paparazzi photo of herself on her Instagram page.

The English singer was photographed queuing at an airport in February 2019 and later shared the shot to her Instagram "without permission or authorisation", court documents filed in the US state.

The since-deleted post showed the New Rules star standing in line with her luggage while wearing a large black hat.

She wrote in the caption: "I'll be living under big fluffy hats until further notice."

I struggled with this one until I looked into it and found she will probably lose.

The rules of copyright say that the copyright to a picture belong to the photographer. It can be a picuture of a tree, a dog, a bike or a person the copyright to the picture itself are the property of the photographer.

The person in the photograph does have some rights over the use of their image but, and this is hard to get your head around, they don't have the copyright to their image in that picture. In fact if the celebrity staged a photograph that was intentionally similar and took the photograph themselves to get around that problem they could still be sued for copyright infringement.

This probably won't be a big topic but it's one of those odd little stories.

Part of it is because she is in a public place.

I take pictures of homes all of the time. People often freak out when they see some strange looking man slowing down in front of their home snapping a quick photo.

Been chased down before. But, the picture is my picture, even though it's not my house, and the owner of the house has no right to my picture.

That being said, if there are kids in the yard, the picture doesn't get taken. I'm in no mood to speak to an armed father chasing me down the highway.

Not that they could catch me.

Why are you taking pictures of people homes ? Be lucky you're not outside mine, I'd come out after you .. and have done previously when I caught someone taking a photo of my flat on their ipad . I have photos of them now too and their car reg etc. Knock the door and ask first.

Maddog wrote:

Cactus Jack wrote:https://www.rte.ie/entertainment/2021/0712/1234518-dua-lipa-sued-for-posting-paparazzi-picture-of-herself/

Dua Lipa is being sued for posting a paparazzi photo of herself on her Instagram page.

The English singer was photographed queuing at an airport in February 2019 and later shared the shot to her Instagram "without permission or authorisation", court documents filed in the US state.

The since-deleted post showed the New Rules star standing in line with her luggage while wearing a large black hat.

She wrote in the caption: "I'll be living under big fluffy hats until further notice."

I struggled with this one until I looked into it and found she will probably lose.

The rules of copyright say that the copyright to a picture belong to the photographer. It can be a picuture of a tree, a dog, a bike or a person the copyright to the picture itself are the property of the photographer.

The person in the photograph does have some rights over the use of their image but, and this is hard to get your head around, they don't have the copyright to their image in that picture. In fact if the celebrity staged a photograph that was intentionally similar and took the photograph themselves to get around that problem they could still be sued for copyright infringement.

This probably won't be a big topic but it's one of those odd little stories.

Part of it is because she is in a public place.

I take pictures of homes all of the time. People often freak out when they see some strange looking man slowing down in front of their home snapping a quick photo.

Been chased down before. But, the picture is my picture, even though it's not my house, and the owner of the house has no right to my picture.

That being said, if there are kids in the yard, the picture doesn't get taken. I'm in no mood to speak to an armed father chasing me down the highway.

Not that they could catch me.

xtras1 wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Cactus Jack wrote:https://www.rte.ie/entertainment/2021/0712/1234518-dua-lipa-sued-for-posting-paparazzi-picture-of-herself/

Dua Lipa is being sued for posting a paparazzi photo of herself on her Instagram page.

The English singer was photographed queuing at an airport in February 2019 and later shared the shot to her Instagram "without permission or authorisation", court documents filed in the US state.

The since-deleted post showed the New Rules star standing in line with her luggage while wearing a large black hat.

She wrote in the caption: "I'll be living under big fluffy hats until further notice."

I struggled with this one until I looked into it and found she will probably lose.

The rules of copyright say that the copyright to a picture belong to the photographer. It can be a picuture of a tree, a dog, a bike or a person the copyright to the picture itself are the property of the photographer.

The person in the photograph does have some rights over the use of their image but, and this is hard to get your head around, they don't have the copyright to their image in that picture. In fact if the celebrity staged a photograph that was intentionally similar and took the photograph themselves to get around that problem they could still be sued for copyright infringement.

This probably won't be a big topic but it's one of those odd little stories.

Part of it is because she is in a public place.

I take pictures of homes all of the time. People often freak out when they see some strange looking man slowing down in front of their home snapping a quick photo.

Been chased down before. But, the picture is my picture, even though it's not my house, and the owner of the house has no right to my picture.

That being said, if there are kids in the yard, the picture doesn't get taken. I'm in no mood to speak to an armed father chasing me down the highway.

Not that they could catch me.

Pray do tell why are you slowing down taking photos , then rushing off

Maddog wrote:

Cactus Jack wrote:https://www.rte.ie/entertainment/2021/0712/1234518-dua-lipa-sued-for-posting-paparazzi-picture-of-herself/

Dua Lipa is being sued for posting a paparazzi photo of herself on her Instagram page.

The English singer was photographed queuing at an airport in February 2019 and later shared the shot to her Instagram "without permission or authorisation", court documents filed in the US state.

The since-deleted post showed the New Rules star standing in line with her luggage while wearing a large black hat.

She wrote in the caption: "I'll be living under big fluffy hats until further notice."

I struggled with this one until I looked into it and found she will probably lose.

The rules of copyright say that the copyright to a picture belong to the photographer. It can be a picuture of a tree, a dog, a bike or a person the copyright to the picture itself are the property of the photographer.

The person in the photograph does have some rights over the use of their image but, and this is hard to get your head around, they don't have the copyright to their image in that picture. In fact if the celebrity staged a photograph that was intentionally similar and took the photograph themselves to get around that problem they could still be sued for copyright infringement.

This probably won't be a big topic but it's one of those odd little stories.

Part of it is because she is in a public place.

I take pictures of homes all of the time. People often freak out when they see some strange looking man slowing down in front of their home snapping a quick photo.

Been chased down before. But, the picture is my picture, even though it's not my house, and the owner of the house has no right to my picture.

That being said, if there are kids in the yard, the picture doesn't get taken. I'm in no mood to speak to an armed father chasing me down the highway.

Not that they could catch me.

Cactus Jack wrote:https://www.rte.ie/entertainment/2021/0712/1234518-dua-lipa-sued-for-posting-paparazzi-picture-of-herself/

Dua Lipa is being sued for posting a paparazzi photo of herself on her Instagram page.

The English singer was photographed queuing at an airport in February 2019 and later shared the shot to her Instagram "without permission or authorisation", court documents filed in the US state.

The since-deleted post showed the New Rules star standing in line with her luggage while wearing a large black hat.

She wrote in the caption: "I'll be living under big fluffy hats until further notice."

I struggled with this one until I looked into it and found she will probably lose.

The rules of copyright say that the copyright to a picture belong to the photographer. It can be a picuture of a tree, a dog, a bike or a person the copyright to the picture itself are the property of the photographer.

The person in the photograph does have some rights over the use of their image but, and this is hard to get your head around, they don't have the copyright to their image in that picture. In fact if the celebrity staged a photograph that was intentionally similar and took the photograph themselves to get around that problem they could still be sued for copyright infringement.

This probably won't be a big topic but it's one of those odd little stories.

Maddog wrote:

Cactus Jack wrote:https://www.rte.ie/entertainment/2021/0712/1234518-dua-lipa-sued-for-posting-paparazzi-picture-of-herself/

Dua Lipa is being sued for posting a paparazzi photo of herself on her Instagram page.

The English singer was photographed queuing at an airport in February 2019 and later shared the shot to her Instagram "without permission or authorisation", court documents filed in the US state.

The since-deleted post showed the New Rules star standing in line with her luggage while wearing a large black hat.

She wrote in the caption: "I'll be living under big fluffy hats until further notice."

I struggled with this one until I looked into it and found she will probably lose.

The rules of copyright say that the copyright to a picture belong to the photographer. It can be a picuture of a tree, a dog, a bike or a person the copyright to the picture itself are the property of the photographer.

The person in the photograph does have some rights over the use of their image but, and this is hard to get your head around, they don't have the copyright to their image in that picture. In fact if the celebrity staged a photograph that was intentionally similar and took the photograph themselves to get around that problem they could still be sued for copyright infringement.

This probably won't be a big topic but it's one of those odd little stories.

Part of it is because she is in a public place.

I take pictures of homes all of the time. People often freak out when they see some strange looking man slowing down in front of their home snapping a quick photo.

Been chased down before. But, the picture is my picture, even though it's not my house, and the owner of the house has no right to my picture.

That being said, if there are kids in the yard, the picture doesn't get taken. I'm in no mood to speak to an armed father chasing me down the highway.

Not that they could catch me.

Cactus Jack wrote:With a building or a public space I can kind of understand that it's just when it comes to not having the copyright to your own face it seems kind of weird.

You're definitely right, but it's weird

Maddog wrote:

Cactus Jack wrote:https://www.rte.ie/entertainment/2021/0712/1234518-dua-lipa-sued-for-posting-paparazzi-picture-of-herself/

Dua Lipa is being sued for posting a paparazzi photo of herself on her Instagram page.

The English singer was photographed queuing at an airport in February 2019 and later shared the shot to her Instagram "without permission or authorisation", court documents filed in the US state.

The since-deleted post showed the New Rules star standing in line with her luggage while wearing a large black hat.

She wrote in the caption: "I'll be living under big fluffy hats until further notice."

I struggled with this one until I looked into it and found she will probably lose.

The rules of copyright say that the copyright to a picture belong to the photographer. It can be a picuture of a tree, a dog, a bike or a person the copyright to the picture itself are the property of the photographer.

The person in the photograph does have some rights over the use of their image but, and this is hard to get your head around, they don't have the copyright to their image in that picture. In fact if the celebrity staged a photograph that was intentionally similar and took the photograph themselves to get around that problem they could still be sued for copyright infringement.

This probably won't be a big topic but it's one of those odd little stories.

Part of it is because she is in a public place.

I take pictures of homes all of the time. People often freak out when they see some strange looking man slowing down in front of their home snapping a quick photo.

Been chased down before. But, the picture is my picture, even though it's not my house, and the owner of the house has no right to my picture.

That being said, if there are kids in the yard, the picture doesn't get taken. I'm in no mood to speak to an armed father chasing me down the highway.

Not that they could catch me.