Danziger Gallery Exhibits "AI-generated color version" of Ansel Adams' "Moonrise, Hernadez, New Mexico" at AIPAD

[MurrayMinchin]

According to Wikipedia, the copyright was not renewed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Moonrise,_Hernandez,_New_Mexico_(cropped).jpg

Interesting. In an earlier post I mentioned that US copyright gets 'mushy' somewhere between 1931 and 1978.

In Canada it's much more civilized, where copyright is automatic and lasts 70 years after the artists death.

 

[Craig]

Copyright arises automatically upon creation of a work, no further action is needed. You can register a copyright to make it clear who the creator and owner is, but it is not necessary for copyright creation.

Simply put, copyright registration makes it easier to sue someone, as it clearly establishes ownership at a particular date . However, registration is not required to secure the rights of the creator.

 

[BrianShaw]

Interesting. In an earlier post I mentioned that US copyright gets 'mushy' somewhere between 1931 and 1978.

In Canada it's much more civilized, where copyright is automatic and lasts 70 years after the artists death.

Not mushy. There are specific rules. The US copyright law evolved. But it depends on creation date. In the US it’s a “civilize” 70 years for creations after 1978. Before that, the rules are different and also depend on renewals.

https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf

 

[BrianShaw]

What Im somewhat excited about is the test of the creator. Past or existing rules of creator and transformative and derivative all seem to depend on human creation or decisions. The AI Bon-human angle is a great test of the law.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Not mushy. There are specific rules. The US copyright law evolved. But it depends on creation date. In the US it’s a “civilize” 70 years for creations after 1978. Before that, the rules are different and also depend on renewals.

https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf

Mushy in that there were different rules between certain dates, and variations within the variations.

Life + 70 years is easier.

 

[BrianShaw]

Yep… easier to have a single rule. For sure!

The law, though, is generally dynamic… which is a good thing generally.

 

[MattKing]

The laws differ between the USA and Canada.
The USA seems to require registration if you wish to access certain powerful remedies.
And as at least one of my law school professors pontificated: "It is all about the remedies".
Of course, he might have been influenced by another professor, whose saying was "I just want to know who gets the car!"
You have to read that last bit with a Kansas accent

 

[Craig]

The laws differ between the USA and Canada.

True, actually a more accurate statement is until about a decade ago is that US IP law differed from the rest of the world. Outside of the US, IP law is remarkably similar.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

And I think not...considering anyone can make a near-equivilent with Ai and a little photoshop...and most likely done as well.

Collectors who can afford to drop ten grand on a photo don;t do their own photos.

Within my own adult lifetime, real-deal Moonrise prints sold for less than that. By the time the public is done with this pretentious vendor, that fake might not be worth the frame it is put in. Or else he'll start getting compared to Peter Lik, and himself become a pariah within that fine art collector community which he currently depends on for his financial momentum.

Arguing Adams' photos went for peanuts at one time doesn't mean anything today. I attended the AIPAD International Photo Dealers show (Danziger is showing this photo at AIPAD) twenty years ago and saw multiple dealers selling Moonnrise BW prints from $60K to over $120K. So getting a unique, colorized version from the Danziger Gallery for $10K seems pretty cheap. I agree that this might hurt his reputation. On the other hand, he's getting huge publicity and free advertisement from the notoriety. If you were in NYC and attending the show to buy something, which dealer's booth would you want to stop by? Everyone is going to stop by the Danziger booth to see this photo and what the hulabaloo is all about.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Just wondering, what would make it "transformative"?

It doesn't have to be transformative or derivative if it's not copyrighted, as Danziger claims. It has less protection than my avatar on the left side of this screen.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The laws differ between the USA and Canada.
The USA seems to require registration if you wish to access certain powerful remedies.
And as at least one of my law school professors pontificated: "It is all about the remedies".
Of course, he might have been influenced by another professor, whose saying was "I just want to know who gets the car!"
You have to read that last bit with a Kansas accent

It;s being sold at AIPAD in NYC, America. Actually, you raise an interesting point. What happens if the lawsuit starts in Canada? Can you be sued in another country if their laws vary?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

People have done stupid things before which ended their once reputable business. Galleries are a tightwalk rope to begin with. And in that neck of the woods, far bigger ones have collapsed over unsavory incidents. I've seen it happen here several times. Ruin someone's work in your hands, or their reputation, and the name of the game changes awfully fast. He might not have only gone out on a limb, but started sawing it off behind him. Lawyers win either way.

Danzinger knows how to market his photographers and his gallery. That's what this color photo is all about, not making ten grand. More people will buy photos at AIPAD from his booth than from any other dealer. IF I was famous and looking for a new dealer to represent me, Danziger Gallery, NYC, would be on the top of my list.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

What Im somewhat excited about is the test of the creator. Past or existing rules of creator and transformative and derivative all seem to depend on human creation or decisions. The AI Bon-human angle is a great test of the law.

AI is a tool that requires human prompts to get the picture, just as sliders are moved by human hands in Photoshop to modify an original. AI isn't sentient, making decisions on its own. It requires human intervention. Likewise, the sale of the object is a human action. I don;t think the law will allow copyright violations if AI creates the photo.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

It may be a civil wrong, bringinging rise to a claim for damages (in law) and other equitable relief such as an injunction, but it isn't likely to send someone to jail.
In other words, not actually illegal.
If it was illegal, we could demand prosecution for the offence against public sensibilities!

regardless, it's all wrong and heresy. It's one of AA's best.

 

[Arthurwg]

This scene is about 40 miles south of my home, so of course I had to visit. It's adjacent to the larger town of Espanola, You can actually find the more-or-less exact spot from which the picture was made, although the scene is now somewhat obscured by more recent construction. Across the street you'll find a property with the name "Moonrise Farm." It was cloudy when I was there, so I got the non-colorized version.

 

[BrianShaw]

It doesn't have to be transformative or derivative if it's not copyrighted, as Danziger claims. It has less protection than my avatar on the left side of this screen.

May I please have permission to monochromize your avatar, have it printed in large sizes by a world-class printer (I have one in mind already), and sell those prints to rich/foolish chumps, errrr... collectors, for lots of money?

 

[MurrayMinchin]

It;s being sold at AIPAD in NYC, America. Actually, you raise an interesting point. What happens if the lawsuit starts in Canada? Can you be sued in another country if their laws vary?

After an exhaustive 10 minute Internet search where I couldn't find the actual clause in Canada's Copyright Act, the automatic death + 70 years rule applies to foreign artists and their works as well.

So, I'm guessing a Canadian gallery could be sued for making and selling such a print in Canada.

Could a Canadian gallery be sued if they showed and sold one of the prints (made in the US) in question? I don't know.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

May I please have permission to monochromize your avatar, have it printed in large sizes by a world-class printer (I have one in mind already), and sell those prints to rich/foolish chumps, errrr... collectors, for lots of money?

Sure. I'll take 30% of sales.

 

[BrianShaw]

AI is a tool that requires human prompts to get the picture, just as sliders are moved by human hands in Photoshop to modify an original. AI isn't sentient, making decisions on its own. It requires human intervention. Likewise, the sale of the object is a human action. I don;t think the law will allow copyright violations if AI creates the photo.

As I suggested, this will be a good test of the law. It seems an ongoing sreies of related tests. Briefly looking at precendent, though, it's not clear at all that your version of "the act of human hands" prevails currently.

 

[DREW WILEY]

What bothers me most is that they didn't bother to seek permission from the AA trust to begin with, but seem to be deliberately waving a red flag at a bull, tempting the outcome. That could imply trying to leverage a precedent,
potentially threatening the integrity of all kinds of works somehow deemed now in the "public domain".

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

PS You'll have to pay for any lawsuits from the owner;s of the painting in the picture.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

As I suggested, this will be a good test of the law. It seems an ongoing sreies of related tests. Briefly looking at precendent, though, it's not clear at all that your version of "the act of human hands" prevails currently.

It will, I'm fairly confident. Blaming AI would be like blaming a knife for the murder. Human intervention and action are required in both cases.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Neil Young’s song about selling out:

This Note's For You"

Don't want no cash
Don't need no money
Ain't got no stash
This note's for you

Ain't singing for Pepsi
Ain't singing for Coke
I don't sing for nobody
Makes me look like a joke
This note's for you

Not singing for Miller
Don't sing for Bud
I won't sing for politicians
Ain't singing for Spuds
This note's for you

Don't need no cash
Don't want no money
Ain't got no stash
This note's for you

I've got the real thing
I got the real thing, baby
I got the real thing
Yeah, alright

He ended up selling 50% of his songs for 150 million bucks.

Is there a price at which would I/you would sell out?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

What bothers me most is that they didn't bother to seek permission from the AA trust to begin with, but seem to be deliberately waving a red flag at a bull, tempting the outcome. That could imply trying to leverage a precedent,
potentially threatening the integrity of all kinds of works somehow deemed now in the "public domain".

What if the Trust said "no", which is likely? Also, seeking permission would make it seem that they feel what they're doing is illegal. That could present a problem if there were a lawsuit. In any case, why should they ask the Trust in the first place, since the Trust doesn't own the copyright? Who made the Trust the ethical keeper and decider of what happens to Adams' photos not copyrighted? SHould Danziger also ask Adams' grandchildren what they think? Should he ask all the owners of other Adams's photos as well? Where would that end?

In any case, the controversy raises the value of all of Adams' pictures, including the ones still owned by the Trust. The Trust might figure it out and start colorizing the ones they still hold the copyrights on to make even more money. Everyone will be happy.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

One thing about the ethical arguments. The whole purpose of the Copyright law is to protect creators and the income they and their descendants can make for 70 years after death. That's a pretty long time, especially if you're the one dead. The public wanted the laws this way because we feel that artistic creations should be open to reinterpretation, copying, or whatever after a certain time period. TYhese re-creations are not unethical but rather encouraged. Ending copyrights enhances us and our community. Would we want to require new musical arrangers to have to ask Bach's or Beethoven's family for permission to rearrange one of their works for ethical reasons? We want people to work off of existing works. Recently, on YouTube, I;ve watched colorize movies of original BW movies made around 1905 in various cities. They're amazing to watch in color especially when their resolution and clarity have been improved.. The originals are in the public domain. Would we want people to have to ask permission of the descendants of the moviemakers to colorize?