Re: Date on a print
I may not be the best one to answer this, but here's my opinion on the matter. 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 camden[at]hardyphotography[dot]net http://www.hardyphotography.net 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 > > > >
|