[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > (Yeah, I've been busy offlist and not participating here much, just > glancing at most-recent threads every so often. Sorry about that. > Hope tochange it soon ...) > > My ex-housemate hasn't taken his computer away yet, and he has a > scanner with a transparency adaptor (35mm strips only, alas, not > 120 nor mounted slides) so I've been scanning a bunch of my old > to take advantage of it while it's still here. A lot of film from > 2001-2003. > > When preparing a scanned image for posting on the web or emailing > to a subject -- mostly adjust-levels, unsharp-mask, scale, and > maybe crop -- one of my standard actions is (duh) to add a copyright > notice. Here's the thing: I'm not really certain whether it's > more appropriate to put in the year the photo was captured on > film, or the year I scanned and prepped it. Or should I just > ignore what's "more appropriate" and put the current year because > I _can_ (because it's a "new version" with (minor) changes plus the > change in medium)? > > Using the current year if I'm blacking out (or whiting out) the > background or making other significant changes to the composition > seems obvious to me. When it's just a matter of applying two > filters and adding the copyright notice, it feels a lot less > obvious. > > So: what do _you_ do when adding a copyright notice to a new scan > of an old photo? And, if you have the time: why? > > -- Glenn >
Copyright date is fairly irrelevant, as Copyright terms are now based on the creator's date of death (IIRC it's Death+70 years now in the US). -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
