The rule is actually against images that falsify the appearance of the property, but it does specify “using AI and other digital tools” - which creates a loophole for retouching photos the old fashioned way in a darkroom. I don’t know why they have to mention the alteration method at all, it should just prohibit deceptive images.
Seems that images that don’t accurately portray the property ought to be covered by general laws against false advertising in the first place? Why is it necessary to be so specific?
I dunno, maybe it’s a clarification, maybe making it a city law enables the New York DA to prosecute violators rather than people having to file lawsuits – anybody’s guess, IANAL.
The rule is actually against images that falsify the appearance of the property, but it does specify “using AI and other digital tools” - which creates a loophole for retouching photos the old fashioned way in a darkroom. I don’t know why they have to mention the alteration method at all, it should just prohibit deceptive images.
Seems that images that don’t accurately portray the property ought to be covered by general laws against false advertising in the first place? Why is it necessary to be so specific?
I dunno, maybe it’s a clarification, maybe making it a city law enables the New York DA to prosecute violators rather than people having to file lawsuits – anybody’s guess, IANAL.