p.s. In case you missed it in your archives search, this question was discussed in May of last year on this thread:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/msg05100.html Connie --- On Fri, 2/25/11, Olds-Wills-Anderson-Simonson Hodges-Harris-Liikala-Jukkara <family.na...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have researched the archives and > pondered this issue. Should photos > have sources---------are photos themselves a source. > I believe the > answer to both is yes, > > It does not appear Legacy programmers think assigning a > source to a > photo is approporate----at least I've not found a means to > assign a > source to a photo. I have many of photos inscribed on > the back with > names, places, dates---of course a practice we should all > promote. In > most instances I know where the photos originated, Aunt > Irene's > collection, Uncle Joe's collection, etc. In some > instances the names > on identical photos differ as do dates. It would be > useful to source > this information so others too will know from where the > photos came. > It bothers me I continued using Aunt Irene's inscriptions > as fact only > to later learn she had the names > reversed. I suppose source-like > informaiton could appear in the photo description > area---not nearly as > useful as an official source > entry. Opinions? Why shouldn't > photos > be sourced? > > As for photos themselves being a source. I believe > the concenus is > certainly. A photo of a tombstone for example serves as a > source for > dates and names. > Gary > Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
