Re: Date on a print
Thank you very much!
Any further suggestion from the list will be highly appreciated.
Am 25.10.2006 17:49 Uhr schrieb "Camden Hardy" unter
> 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, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>> Hello everybody
>> When printing a limited edition, what is the correct date on each single
>> The day when I shot the picture or the day of printing (e.g. picture was
>> 11/11/2005 but the edition has been printed a year later in a period of 2
>> Thanks in advance & best Regards
>> Steve Lichtweg