Re: Date on a print
Hello Carmen Thank you very much! Any further suggestion from the list will be highly appreciated. Steve Lichtweg Am 25.10.2006 17:49 Uhr schrieb "Camden Hardy" unter <camden@hardyphotography.net> > 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 >> >> >> >> > >
|