Watermarked photo[edit]

Anastrophe: Regarding the edit on George Mikan that you recently reverted, I consider you committed a mistake and want to give my reasons.

First, the photo uploaded has not watermarks because I edited it myself to remove them. This is because that watermark comes from the ebay seller, who does the same with all the items on sale although some images may be in the PD.

The Mikan photo meets the requirements for being PD in the US (at least as far as I know, tell me if I'm wrong) and that's why I removed the watermark from the image.

If my statements are correct, please restore the photo. If I'm wrong, please could you tell me why?. Thanks in advance. Fma12 (talk) 09:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fma12, I failed to link to the more relevant page for why removing the watermark and posting isn't a good idea. Here's more info:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Removal_of_watermarks_from_Commons_images

I just checked, and the image is in the public domain per Associated Press's failure to renew copyright:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Photographs_distributed_by_Associated_Press

However, ultimately I would simply argue that the existing image is far more visually interesting than a photo of him holding some telegrams. There are a lot of images of Mikan out there - and the article has five photos currently. At worst, add the portrait then move the existing image into the body. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 17:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]