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

[Alan Edward Klein]

A few posters - mostly me.

I liked the spoof with the Death Star instead of the moon. Was that yours? It is very apropos with the recent release of all the UFO photos. Now that's transformative!

 

[Milpool]

I wonder what the AI would have done with some of Adams's better pictures.

These threads are kind of useful as periodic zoomies.

 

[Don_ih]

I liked the spoof with the Death Star instead of the moon. Was that yours?

No, I meant photos actually posted in this thread. Or maybe I missed that one.

Anyway, Alan, I don't know what the point is you're arguing. If it's legal, what does that matter? It's legal to carry around a cup of urine and offer to sell it to other people, too. Even if it's not your urine. Even if it's Ansel Adams' urine.

 

[bdial]

Ages ago when I worked in “cube land”, I had an Ansel calendar on my wall. One day a colleague stopped by, looked at that month’s picture for a bit and said “Nice picture, too bad it’s not in color.”

I went into shock

 

[BrianShaw]

I got similar response when I visited an exhibit of AA prints over the years at the Friends of Photography Gallery in the 1980's. All I said was, "I like the original better." Or, it was when I said, "I'd crop that into a landscape panorama." Perhaps I said it too enthusiastically or too loud...

AI likeness of me making absurd and rude statements at the gallery (prompt: Please make me a picture of a clown making ridiculous statements at an Ansel Adams showing of Moonrise, Hernia):

 

[Vaughn]

Fortunately, the Friends of Photography are not around anymore to sue anyone for improper use of the image of AA sitting under two examples of "Moonrise" (original image by taken by Jim Alinder). It was published in their book, Ansel Adams, 1902 - 1984. (but probably safe due to 'educational use')

 

[BrianShaw]

Whew. I was unaware that it had been published. I hereby claim “Fair Use”…

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

No, I meant photos actually posted in this thread. Or maybe I missed that one.

Anyway, Alan, I don't know what the point is you're arguing. If it's legal, what does that matter? It's legal to carry around a cup of urine and offer to sell it to other people, too. Even if it's not your urine. Even if it's Ansel Adams' urine.

The discussion focused on whether it was ethical, not legal, to modify someone else's photograph in the Public Domain. That raises the point that hasn't yet been discussed, I don't believe, and that is, if you don't want your photograph modified, edited or changed, don't publish it. Don't put it in the public at all. Keep it private.

 

[Andrew H]

I’d like to contribute this to the mix. Last year, in February 2025, the German Commission for UNESCO added Analogue Photography to the list of what it calls Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH). The recognition of analogue photography on a national level in Germany is the first step to adding it to the Representative World List.

UNESCO defines Analogue Photography as “the entirety of all chemical techniques used to create an image on a substrate (e.g. paper, glass, celluloid and canvas). Using optical systems, a light image is projected onto a light-sensitive medium and stored for a longer period of time.“

Further, here’s UNESCO’s cultural reasoning:

“In the 19th and 20th centuries in particular, a large number of techniques and processes for reproduction in photography were developed, which have fundamentally shaped our society ever since. Knowledge of the origin and application of analogue photographic processes is gradually disappearing from everyday life due to digital offerings and is only practiced and taught in all its complexity by a few specialists. At the same time, analogue photography is experiencing a revival as a leisure activity and as a form of artistic expression.”

A cool-headed article by Helen Stoilas for “The Art Newspaper” presents all sides of the Danziger affair. It’s well worth the read. To me the ethics are fairly clear; I’m biased to protection of creative authorship (AA). The courts will have to, again, address this.

AI debate erupts over ‘colourised’ version of a classic Ansel Adams photo

The photographer’s estate has accused the dealer James Danziger of leveraging an unauthorised AI-generated piece to push a commercial venture to colourise other artists' works

www.theartnewspaper.com

 

[Arthurwg]

Conceptual art says: the idea itself is the artwork. The object is just evidence of the idea.

There's a lot to this and I agree. Duchamp among others proved it. But it leaves out something essential that is also there: Sensibility. Indeed, a good working definition of art is simply "the idea coupled with sensibility." This principal levels the playing field among the arts. Yes, painting is more difficult than photography, but that doesn't necessarily make photography a lesser art.

 

[MattKing]

There's a lot to this and I agree. Duchamp among others proved it. But it leaves out something essential that is also there: Sensibility. Indeed, a good working definition of art is simply "the idea coupled with sensibility." This principal levels the playing field among the arts. Yes, painting is more difficult than photography, but that doesn't necessarily make photography a lesser art.

But it does make photography potentially a more accessible art.
And its accessibility may make it a more likely vehicle for conceptual art.
Which strangely may explain part of the reason that I like so much of Jeff Wall's best known work - very conceptual, but the technical qualities - the huge backlit cibachromes from large format transparencies - challenge the apparent accessibility of the photographic medium, by employing photographically impressive tools and technique.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Don - the problem with the qualitative difference in AA's big mural prints wasn't the competence of the printing; it was his negatives themselves. In fact, most of those were printed under his own supervision by a much better equipped big pro lab in SF, not in his own digs. His earlier film and camera choices were not in the same precision league as, say, Bradford Washburn later on, who was scientifically trained and mainly used very precise aerial film gear fixed-focused at infinity, whose big prints hold up extremely well.

In my brief association with those mural prints, a deliberate push-pull was in play. Viewers backed off from the AA prints to take them in, in a different manner they customarily viewed his work. To disguise the anomalies present when viewed large, Ansel dictated that these big images be printed a little more softly and on non-glossy paper. And indeed, this led intelligent viewers to see these famous scenes at a whole different level, less dramatically and more poetically. I heard a lot of those comments in person. These were each displayed on dark brown panels, according to Ansel's own preference.

But in my case, between these brown panels, I had equal size pale neutral gray panels. And when people closely approached my work after taking in the overall composition, they started enjoying all the extreme detail. These were big color Cibachromes I had myself printed and specially framed - mostly taken within the same general or High Sierra settings as much of Ansel's own interest, but in an entirely different manner. His work was comparatively "scenic"; mine was quite "Zen" at the time - certainly not understated or minimalistic, but demanding another style of viewing and contemplation, and involving a lot of very nuanced hues. That was the whole point - counterpoint itself. Unfortunately, due to the extreme value of those big AA prints, the insurer would not allow the show to travel elsewhere.

Anyway, nothing I can add to this colorized Moonrise thread is going to top your "REMAX" summary of it. If he had made that redo simply as a draw to his booth, it might not have been so annoying. But by editioning it and offering it for sale, he crossed a line in my opinion. What's to stop someone from mass producing a scanned and cut in half diptych version of some famous AA scene, claiming that as "transformative"? It would make no difference with serious collectors, however; what they want is the full original signature too. Nobody is going to pay much without that. ... Just sofa decor at this point, colorized.

Already there have been a number of Ai-generated, "Make me an Ansel Adams looking scene."
Some of these abominations have been offered for sale, and the Trust has intervened to altogether stop usage of his own name in connection with those. They hold that as a copyright too. My main gripe, is all of this digi nonsense cheats people out of experiencing light and beauty for themselves, thinking they can faux artificially concoct that at will. At least Ansel had the real deal in front of him when he pressed the shutter.

 

[Don_ih]

The discussion focused on whether it was ethical, not legal, to modify someone else's photograph in the Public Domain.

Ethics is a matter of whatever system is to adjudicate. Is it ethical from the point of view of non-photographers? They don't care - so they would have no problem with it. Is it ethical from the point of view of photographers? Some yes, some no. More people have a problem with the display, attempt to sell as a distinct artwork, the cited manner of production, and the lack of reference to the original. If my Remax over Hernandez (above) was used in an ad campaign, I doubt anyone would care. Saying it's a distinct artwork in its own right is the problem.

If I take my Dodge Grand Caravan and paint it a different colour, I won't get away with telling people it's now a Don Grande Caravaggio. It's not suddenly a different thing.

 

[Vaughn]

Whew. I was unaware that it had been published. I hereby claim “Fair Use”…

I just happened to have the book next to me -- I was using it to compare with the colorized version. You're cool....

The photo is on the last page -- a full page example of "Moonrise" is on page 54 -- accidentally printed backwards. Which I kinds like since all my carbon prints are printed 'backwards'.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Don - the problem with the qualitative difference in AA's big mural prints wasn't the competence of the printing; it was his negatives themselves. In fact, most of those were printed under his own supervision by a much better equipped big pro lab in SF, not in his own digs. His earlier film and camera choices were not in the same precision league as, say, Bradford Washburn later on, who was scientifically trained and mainly used very precise aerial film gear fixed-focused at infinity, whose big prints hold up extremely well.

In my brief association with those mural prints, a deliberate push-pull was in play. Viewers backed off from the AA prints to take them in, in a different manner they customarily viewed his work. To disguise the anomalies present when viewed large, Ansel dictated that these big images be printed a little more softly and on non-glossy paper. And indeed, this led intelligent viewers to see these famous scenes at a whole different level, less dramatically and more poetically. I heard a lot of those comments in person. These were each displayed on dark brown panels, according to Ansel's own preference.

But in my case, between these brown panels, I had equal size pale neutral gray panels. And when people closely approached my work after taking in the overall composition, they started enjoying all the extreme detail. These were big color Cibachromes I had myself printed and specially framed - mostly taken within the same general or High Sierra settings as much of Ansel's own interest, but in an entirely different manner. His work was comparatively "scenic"; mine was quite "Zen" at the time - certainly not understated or minimalistic, but demanding another style of viewing and contemplation, and involving a lot of very nuanced hues. That was the whole point - counterpoint itself. Unfortunately, due to the extreme value of those big AA prints, the insurer would not allow the show to travel elsewhere.

Anyway, nothing I can add to this colorized Moonrise thread is going to top your "REMAX" summary of it. If he had made that redo simply as a draw to his booth, it might not have been so annoying. But by editioning it and offering it for sale, he crossed a line in my opinion. What's to stop someone from mass producing a scanned and cut in half diptych version of some famous AA scene, claiming that as "transformative"? It would make no difference with serious collectors, however; what they want is the full original signature too. Nobody is going to pay much without that. ... Just sofa decor at this point, colorized.

Already there have been a number of Ai-generated, "Make me an Ansel Adams looking scene."
Some of these abominations have been offered for sale, and the Trust has intervened to altogether stop usage of his own name in connection with those. They hold that as a copyright too. My main gripe, is all of this digi nonsense cheats people out of experiencing light and beauty for themselves, thinking they can faux artificially concoct that at will. At least Ansel had the real deal in front of him when he pressed the shutter.

"Did you Photoshop the picture?" That's been the question for years since digital photography and Photoshop editing came around. AI is just an extension of it. All sorts of phony images will be made because it's cheap and easy and anyone can do it. People cloned with PS. Now its; just easier. So there's nothing really new what Danziger is doing. Just the next step. If you want to make money, get it done while you're alive plus the 70 years.

By the way. You didn't answer my earlier question. Should Ansel Adams' photos have copyright protection in perpetuity? If so, what about the rest of us photographers? If not, what should we be allowed to do with Ansel's photos once they are in the public domain after protection ends?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Ethics is a matter of whatever system is to adjudicate. Is it ethical from the point of view of non-photographers? They don't care - so they would have no problem with it. Is it ethical from the point of view of photographers? Some yes, some no. More people have a problem with the display, attempt to sell as a distinct artwork, the cited manner of production, and the lack of reference to the original. If my Remax over Hernandez (above) was used in an ad campaign, I doubt anyone would care. Saying it's a distinct artwork in its own right is the problem.

If I take my Dodge Grand Caravan and paint it a different colour, I won't get away with telling people it's now a Don Grande Caravaggio. It's not suddenly a different thing.

Can we assume you think it's ethical to use Adam's Public Domain pictures, since you modified it into a spoof? (I think the ReMax baloon over a graveyard makes it seem the realtor is selling plots for the deceased.) Do you think it;s ethical only becasue it;s legal, or do you think it's otherwise ethical and why?

In case Danziger's lawyers were wrong about it being in the Public Domain, would you please let us know if you get a letter from Ansel Adams Trust?

 

[Don_ih]

Can we assume you think it's ethical to use Adam's Public Domain pictures, since you modified it into a spoof? (I think the ReMax baloon over a graveyard makes it seem the realtor is selling plots for the deceased.) Do you think it;s ethical only becasue it;s legal, or do you think it's otherwise ethical and why?

I think, in my use, ethics is not applicable. I am not using the resultant image for commercial gain. I am not detracting from the value of the original in any way. I am not claiming that my images are anything other than doctored copies of the original (even the ones using the AI-generated colouring).

 

[warden]

I usually play devil's advocate. After all these years of posting, I thought you'd pick up on this by now. When everyone is going one way, I go the other.

This is why it's hard to tell if you have actual opinions or if you just like to type more than the rest of us.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

This is why it's hard to tell if you have actual opinions or if you just like to type more than the rest of us.

Mostly, I believe my arguments, but not always. Often, I do it to create questions in our beliefs and arguments. Otherwise everyone just joins the chorus and repeats the same nonsense and untruths. WE all pat each other on the back, telling ourselves how smart and ethical we are rather than digging in. If you want to know if your beliefs meet the truth, try to justify the opposite view. If you can, then your views are on shaky ground.

 

[Vaughn]

But Allen, we now do not know if your opinions you post now are the fake ones or just your usual BS. You have complained that people here do not respect your opinions...perhaps this is why.

 

[BrianShaw]

The confirmation is appreciated!

 

[Don_ih]

everyone just joins the chorus and repeats the same nonsense and untruths.

That tells me you don't pay much attention to what people are saying. In this thread alone there have been several very different ideas and opinions expressed - some of which are quite nuanced.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

But Allen, we now do not know if your opinions you post now are the fake ones or just your usual BS. You have complained that people here do not respect your opinions...perhaps this is why.

Calling my posts"your usual BS" is insulting. I'm surprised at you.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

That tells me you don't pay much attention to what people are saying. In this thread alone there have been several very different ideas and opinions expressed - some of which are quite nuanced.

You cherry picked a small portion of my post and missed my whole point.

 

[Vaughn]

Calling my posts"your usual BS" is insulting. I'm surprised at you.

Facts are real. Opinions are BS, including mine, but we love them and can't keep from forming them..it is the opposite of "Zenning it" and none of us are Zen masters. We occasionally deal here in facts, but we mostly have opinions about the facts.