[drcy]

I've never even attempted to remove marks from the front of a news photo, because a) When I owned them (I don't have any anymore) I didn't even know it could be done and b) I'm not a handy person and would fear I'd ruin the photo.

Though the general rule for all areas of memorabilia and art, restoration is okay if you disclose it at sale. In California, you are legally required to disclose any and all restoration or alteration to an artwork you're selling. Duly note the California law isn't a felony or anything. You wouldn't go to jail if you didn't realize the $1,000 painting you sold had been revarnished ten years before you bought it. It's just that non-desclosure is considered deceptive and would be considered legal reason for the buyer to return it for refund within a reasonable period of time. I think the law says the return period is one year. If the deception was intentional and significantly effected the sale price, you could possibly get an additional fine, something akin to a parking ticket. Now, on the other hand, if you sold $20 million of artwork and lied about every piece you sold, then you could get in big trouble.

If you want to avoid the above return rules and issues, simply mention that ink or whatever was removed from a photo in your sales or auction description. I don't know that the disclosure will even lower the sales price. If anything, it could raise it because the bidders see that you're an honest seller and they're willing to bid more with sellers they trust. The California law doesn't say there's anything wrong, bad or illegal with alteration or restoration, just that it has to be disclosed at sale.

And, as was the point of Scott's original post in this lengthy thread, what he thought was removal of ink to the photo was apparently not disclosed at auction. He didn't say whether he thought ink removal was good or bad, he just observed that, if there was ink removal on the photo, it wasn't mentioned.