U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | Re: Date on a print

Re: Date on a print

I may not be the best one to answer this, but here's my opinion on the

Generally speaking, when you copyright an image you're "supposed" to use
the date the photo was taken.  It could follow that this applies to
limited editions as well.  However, I have seen works dated based on when
they were printed.

There are also many, many ways to go about dating a piece.  Some people
give the full mm/dd/yyyy, some do mm/yy(yy), while others simply put the
year.  If you choose to stick with the "standards" of copyright, the year
is sufficient.

I'm bringing this up to show how little consistency there is in the art
world about dating works.

Ultimately, I really don't think it matters in the long run, as long as
you're consistent.

Personally, I prefer using the date the print was made.  I always sign and
date the front of my prints, and make the signature/date visible within
the mat.  When I'm feeling particularly worried about copyrighting the
print, I'll put the pertinent copyright info on the back of the print. 
The copyright date reflects when the image was captured.

Camden Hardy


On Wed, October 25, 2006 3:42 am, steve.muc@t-online.de wrote:
> Hello everybody
> When printing a limited edition, what is the correct date on each single
> print:
> The day when I shot the picture or the day of printing (e.g. picture was
> taken
> 11/11/2005 but the edition has been printed a year later in a period of 2
> month)?
> Thanks in advance & best Regards
> Steve Lichtweg