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

[BrianShaw]

... that colour "postcard" ...

A bit snarky and judgemental, wouldn't you agree? In fact, they are large sized prints: Editions of 10 in 3 sizes - 20 x 24” , 24 x 30”, 30 x 40”.

 

[MattKing]

Matt, it is not putting the cart on the wrong side of the horses. It is a link to ruling that has decided that AI was not a tool, but the "creator" of the piece of art.

You are reading too much into the decision. It is a decision about copyright law and AI, not about AI and Art.
If the case hadn't been about copyright protection - say it was about whether a rider in an insurance policy covered AI generated "Art" - then the ratio might arguably extend to the proposition you are saying that it supports.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Nope. A human actor promoted the LLM and post-processed the outcome. All the rest of your reasoning also doesn't hold any water; sorry. E.g. getting the same results - ask 10 bricklayers to build a wall. You'll get ten more or less the same walls. That doesn't mean anything in terms of liability.

Why don't you insert a reference to the three cases you mean so we can have a look whether you're misunderstanding the verdicts, which is what appears to be happening here.

Anyway, I don't get what the hubbub is all about. Someone colorized a photo. Woohoo.

Colorizing a copyrighted picture is not fair use, so it violates copyright because it's considered a derivative work of the original and thusly protected by the copyright. It's not considered transformative or a satire and therefore illegal.

 

[MattKing]

A bit snarky and judgemental, wouldn't you agree? In fact, they are large sized prints: Editions of 10 in 3 sizes - 20 x 24” , 24 x 30”, 30 x 40”.

I don't know about snarky, but I'll accept judgmental.
It really does make me think of postcards when I see it.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

well, that's all true. However the AI manipulation here is a starking novelty. In your example, all the actors who made changes to your original picture are humans, and are subject to IP and copyright laws. They will all be held responsible under IP/copyright laws.

In this case the essential difference is that the original manipulation was made by an AI, and the recent court ruling have stated that nothing produced by AI can be the subject of any IP or copyright litigation. So the AI effectively breaks that chain of changes and manipulation made by humans, and the corresponding chain of liability (???).

I know it sounds weird, and that is why I said this case is an interesting one to follow. Whatever seems moot when only humans are involved, is not that clear-cut any more when an LLM is in the loop. And not because I say it, but because of the latest ruling on the matter. Let's see what will happen, but again, I believe this one has the potential of being a pivotal case in the relationship between AI and IP/copyright.

The AI prompts were made by humans. It's no different than a human moving sliders around in the Photoshop program. Additionally, it;s sale is by the gallery run by humans.

 

[oneeyedpainter]

You are reading too much into the decision. It is a decision about copyright law and AI, not about AI and Art.
If the case hadn't been about copyright protection - say it was about whether a rider in an insurance policy covered AI generated "Art" - then the ratio might arguably extend to the proposition you are saying that it supports.

Sorry Matt, I did not read anything in there, really "Piece of art" is just the legal name to any original creation or derivative work that is under copyright law. Nothing less, nothing more. Copyright is automatically assigned to the creator of a piece of art, or to the legal entity that commissioned that creation, if a contract is in place to say so. There is no disquisition about art in my posts, at all. It's just legalese, really.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

@oneeyedpainter in both if your examples the case presented is the exact opposite from what we're discussing here. Neither is about infringement, both are about the question whether IP accrues from the reliance on AI as a generative (as opposed to derivative) work. So there are several crucial ways in which the logic doesn't apply.

@logan2z there's a rich history of debate surrounding derivative works. Like the quasi-legal responses above, your reflection falls short due to taking a lot of relevant nuance in too simplistic strides.
As to how I'd feel personally: if a gallery would out up one of my photos for sale for $10k I'd be absolutely thrilled. And if it were a direct inkjet print for which I hadn't extended a license I'd have a very solid case in court if it would ever make it that far. Again, you're smashing it flat and as a result jump to unsupported conclusions.

Still, what's the hubbub about. Adams is dead. He literally couldn't care less.

His estate and relatives care.

 

[oneeyedpainter]

The AI prompts were made by humans. It's no different than a human moving sliders around in the Photoshop program. Additionally, it;s sale is by the gallery run by humans.

You don't have to convince me I actually don't know where this will lead. I am just noting that in the past the fact that the AI prompts were made by humans was not enough to attribute the responsibility of the AI action (the creation of a piece of art) to the human who made the prompt. This is what it in those past cases, and I think this is a contentious issue, exactly as you feel it. I wonder how they will sort this out now. We will see, I guess.

 

[MattKing]

Sorry Matt, I did not read anything in there, really "Piece of art" is just the legal name to any original creation or derivative work that is under copyright law. Nothing less, nothing more. Copyright is automatically assigned to the creator of a piece of art, or to the legal entity that commissioned that creation, if a contract is in place to say so. There is no disquisition about art in my posts, at all. It's just legalese, really.

The case is about the statutory provisions, not the definition of Art overall.
It is really important not to read into cases interpreting statutes more than what they are concerned with.

 

[oneeyedpainter]

The case is about the statutory provisions, not the definition of Art overall.
It is really important not to read into cases interpreting statutes more than what they are concerned with.

totally agree on this. We will see then.

 

[BrianShaw]

I don't know about snarky, but I'll accept judgmental.
It really does make me think of postcards when I see it.

Perhaps one more prompt to AI should have been included, "and use realistic looking colours, like those of Portra 160*."

* or insert emulsion of choice based on personal preference for "reality".

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Wonder what would come out of the following?:

AI prompt:
Use this Danzinger Gallery color image [attached jpg] and convert it to black and white in the style of Ansel Adams.

I don't care enough to try, but as AI is generating loads of content based on previously published internet content and AI bots are now creating content based on AI content, the enshitification of the internet is almost complete.

I did some research into Adams' copyright on Moonrise. The reason Danziger can do this is that the original photo may have lost it;s copyright status a long time ago. The copyright was not renewed. Only more recent versions (derivatives) have the copyright extended. If the Danziger photo was one of the originals, and he is colorizing it, it might be perfectly legal.

 

[tcolgate]

Artistically speaking, the entire thing is a total failure of human creativity, and a shameless cash grab. "What's that like in colour?", is zero effort. And these LLMs allow any random to ask exactly that question with precisely the same artistic integrity.
Anyone paying 10k for this nonsense should commit themselves.

 

[BrianShaw]

Alan, please click the link in post 60…

 

[logan2z]

His estate and relatives care.

And I’m quite sure @koraks would as well if this was his artwork in question, despite his earlier statement to the contrary.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Alan, please click the link in post 60…

I'm confused about what you found. My research says the copyright was not renewed. Is that correct or incorrect?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Just an aside. I can't imagine a gallery like Danziger would violate copyright rules. They probably know more about them than all of us combined.

 

[David Lindquist]

This reminds me of Jeff Koons's appropriation of Art Rogers's photograph "Puppies" See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Koons for one of many discussions of this case available on the internet.

Art sued Jeff and won.
David

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

And I’m quite sure @koraks would as well if this was his artwork in question, despite his earlier statement to the contrary.

No one in my family will care about my pictures after I'm gone - copyright or no copyright.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

This reminds me of Jeff Koons's appropriation of Art Rogers's photograph "Puppies" See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Koons for one of many discussions of this case available on the internet.

Art sued Jeff and won.
David

Fair use is in the eye of the beholder. You're allowing a jury or judge to make a decision based on their feelings. If your work has any question of not being in fair use, you'd be better off paying the originator something to get the rights to reproduce. Koon's should have offered, let's say, 10% of the sales to Rogers before he started.

 

[Milpool]

Artistically speaking, the entire thing is a total failure of human creativity, and a shameless cash grab. "What's that like in colour?", is zero effort. And these LLMs allow any random to ask exactly that question with precisely the same artistic integrity.
Anyone paying 10k for this nonsense should commit themselves.

Pretty lazy prompt. The result looks like crap, and the “AI” seems to have cobbled it together from the various eras of Moonrise printing, which is weird. I wonder how many will sell. $3.00 in the Hernandez souvenir shop seems about right.

 

[Don_ih]

Actually, I didn't say that, Wikipedia did. And Wikipedia seems incorrect.

I was assuming you thought that Wikipedia was correct.

And I wonder if they are? The Ansel Adams trust said that they'd asked for the photo to be removed but the gallery didn't do it. The gallery may feel secure that the Trust doesn't have a solid claim on the image rights.

 

[BrianShaw]

I was assuming you thought that Wikipedia was correct.

And I wonder if they are? The Ansel Adams trust said that they'd asked for the photo to be removed but the gallery didn't do it. The gallery may feel secure that the Trust doesn't have a solid claim on the image rights.

I did at first, and then I did what anyone using Wikipedia or AI should do… verify both their sources and other authoritative sources. The link in Post 60 is the copyright database tgat shows when the trust renewed that image’s copyright.

Why hasn’t it been taken down by the gallery already… good question. They may think they can contest the allegations or they may think there’s more value in defying the request relative to the consequences.

 

[MattKing]

And I wonder if they are? The Ansel Adams trust said that they'd asked for the photo to be removed but the gallery didn't do it. The gallery may feel secure that the Trust doesn't have a solid claim on the image rights.

T.they have actusally referenced "Ansel Adams’ iconic “Moonrise Over Hernandez” in the description.
I'm wondering what role in that determination of the validity of the claim that fact might play.

 

[BrianShaw]

T.they have actusally referenced "Ansel Adams’ iconic “Moonrise Over Hernandez” in the description.
I'm wondering what role in that determination of the validity of the claim that fact might play.

It could be evidence of admission of guilt or it could be evidence of honesty.