Postcards/back27 messages

Ken iemand de achterkanten verwijderen van de volgende items: 6794451, 6794449, 6794445, 6794439 en 6794435. De vorige eigenaar heeft dit aan mij gevraagd vanwege persoonlijke redenen. Uit me verzameling heb ik ze al verwijderd, maar in de catalogus moet een beheerder doen of iemand anders van Catawiki. Alvast bedankt.

Does anyone know how to remove the backs of the following items: 6794451 , 6794449 , 6794445 , 6794439 and 6794435 . The previous owner asked me to do this for personal reasons. I have already removed them from my collection, but an administrator or someone else from Catawiki has to do the catalog. Thanks in advance.

We don't immediately cooperate with requests like that. Then the end is soon lost.

Daniel you have them in your collection too, if you change them in the catalog and they are also undescribed copies ... win win

You could be of the opinion that by posting these items (where personal data has not been made illegible) Vision is in violation of art. 11.2 (ii) f of the Terms of Use ("privacy rights of third parties").

Catawiki is released from any legal liability, but because it was not a deliberate violation, you could consider an exception in this case. to make. After all, images from other sites are also deleted without discussion.

The problem is that images are never actually deleted from the database. Even if an administrator removes them, or if Vision replaces them themselves, they remain visible through the History. Perhaps the most effective is to reject the items altogether.

We receive these kinds of requests not every week, but certainly every month. Sometimes it concerns a business card of an employee who no longer wants to be associated with the company in question, the other time it is a discount card that is no longer valid and, according to the issuing body, can no longer be sold by collectors. Or a football picture of which the person portrayed does not want to be visible.

The general position of Catawiki is that everything was deliberately put into circulation without the distributor having control, has - let alone keeps - over where the object will eventually end up and what new owners do with it. In my experience, a phone call with the complainant and an explanation of the purpose and usefulness of the catalog has always solved the problem.

that everything has been deliberately put into circulation

You are right when it comes to printed matter such as business cards. But this concerns items on which someone manually wrote a name and (current) private address, which was never intended for general distribution. As far as I am concerned, there is the limit.

If someone happens to get their hands on your old cell phone with private photos, nowadays you no longer have any control over what happens with it, but that is no argument to justify publication.

In addition, what is written on the card is not an integral part of the collector's item and therefore of no value to the catalog.

You're right, I think. Administrators should make a decision and possibly spend time making texts unreadable so that the layout of the back can be preserved.

I understand the problem, just why doesn't vision post a new image of

the backside?

And then he can "mask" the text anyway?

Does the problem seem solved to me?

I personally think that the back of a card should be an obligation in this section with "post it" you can simply mask the private data but then the item is complete. in.

That it can still be seen through the history, well, that's a pity.

You could also make the address details of private individuals illegible in this section (unless they are the details of the importer himself). Of course with a "statute of limitations" of, for example, 40 years. (Which coincides with the introduction of the postcode in the Netherlands in 1977.)

P.S. Has anything ever been done with the results of this discussion: Postcards from old box ?

So address details and sender are always illegible?

You often do not know the name of the importer like Dick52 (was he born in 52 or is he 52)

But Dick52 knows himself, right? ;-) I just mean that an importer may make his own data public. Although that is indeed difficult to verify.

Thanks for the comments. I will take and post other photos. Will explain to the previous owner that they have been replaced but still remain in the history. This seems to me to be the best solution or reject them completely, then I enter them again, then there is no history left, right?

@Metalfigures unfortunately they are not unwritten and they are not unwritten either, I have the back removed.

Excuus bij item 4386777 moet de achterkant weg is nl een andere kaart die ik heb van hetzelfde gebouw.

Back cover has been removed