Ansel Adams (Trust) picks a fight with Adobe

[Don_ih]

Where does Adobe get their stock photos

They have their own stock photo service. They probably operate the same way Getty and Shutterstock do, in terms of how they get those photos. But any use of those photos, even by the AI in their own software, should need to pay for the service to use the photos rightfully.

 

[pentaxuser]

On Threads. Starts with Ansel (actually the Ansel Adams Trust) objecting to Adobe promising "AI generated Ansel Adams style photos."

Can anyone say which copyright law or any other law that the above statement from Adobe breaks? I presume this is pertaining to U.S. law only.

Certainly in the U.K at auction houses selling paintings the phrase "in the style of" or "after artist X such as Gainsborough, Landseer etc "is frequently used to make it clear that it is not a painting by the said famous artist such as Gainsborough which covers the auction house and seller from accusations of fraud

It sounds like the use of "style" is being used by Adobe in that context

pentaxuser

 

[Don_ih]

The objection is to mentioning Ansel Adams and his photography in a piece of advertising, without clearing it with the rights holder for the name and work of Ansel Adams. No copyright law is broken by that. But they didn't have permission to use the name.

 

[reddesert]

Here's an example of basis in US law. This quotation from the Lanham Act is in the wiki article on "trade dress," and this is not an example of trade dress (something like the yellow-and-red Kodak box), but the legal concept here applies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_dress#Statutory_source

"Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which

(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive ... as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or

(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person's goods, services, or commercial activities,

shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is likely to be damaged by such an act."

Adobe could attempt to claim that the use of "Ansel Adams style" is enough of a disclaimer for them to say they didn't imply sponsorship or approval by the Adams estate. However, both the Adams estate and Adobe probably think Adobe would have a strong chance of losing on the sponsorship, approval, or misrepresentation/nature clauses.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Here's an example of basis in US law. This quotation from the Lanham Act is in the wiki article on "trade dress," and this is not an example of trade dress (something like the yellow-and-red Kodak box), but the legal concept here applies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_dress#Statutory_source

"Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which

(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive ... as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or

(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person's goods, services, or commercial activities,

shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is likely to be damaged by such an act."

Adobe could attempt to claim that the use of "Ansel Adams style" is enough of a disclaimer for them to say they didn't imply sponsorship or approval by the Adams estate. However, both the Adams estate and Adobe probably think Adobe would have a strong chance of losing on the sponsorship, approval, or misrepresentation/nature clauses.

What you quoted refers to trademarks. So this "legal concept" does not seem to apply to the Adobe-Adams issue. Isn't there a better law that would reflect the issue at hand?

 

[reddesert]

Alan, I think you may be a lawyer and I'm not, but I disagree. Nothing in the quoted text restricts its use to trademarks. As the wiki article states, it can protect even devices not registered as trademarks. In fact, that is the point of "trade dress" law - it protects concepts that are not or cannot be trademarked but still might cause confusion. For example, "Kodak" is a trademark, Kodak yellow is not - you can trademark a logo, but not a pure color. However, if someone sold film in the same-colors yellow and red box, Kodak could sue them for causing confusion in the marketplace.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

What you quoted refers to trademarks. So this "legal concept" does not seem to apply to the Adobe-Adams issue. Isn't there a better law that would reflect the issue at hand?

Alan, this law totally applies. It's misleading in that it promises the user that his photograph with look like an Ansel Adams photograph. It's, in that, a misrepresentation of Ansel Adams' work. And they make a profit out of it.

It's textbook the law reddesert quoted.

 

[pentaxuser]

So it seems in U.S. law that what Abobe has said, namely " Ansel Adams style photographs but AI generated" is enough to get you sued despite the use of the word style and literally being "bashed over the head" by the very clear phrase AI generated

I struggle to see how this clear statement by Adobe renders it vulnerable to a lawsuit If say the Aston Martin car was the fasted over 0-60 for a road legal vehicle and another car maker wanted to make a comparison with its speed over 0-60 which was within a fraction of or even the same as the Aston Martin's and so advertised its car's acceleration as in the Aston Martin's class woukd that render it liable to a lawsuit in the U.S.?

Wow that is the kind of catch-all law that certainly makes being a lawyer an attractive profession. It certainly appears to promise riches to the lawyer representing the plaintiff and will of course deliver fees to the lawyer even if the plaintiff loses

I wonder why the beautiful daughter in the Buddy Holly song " Brown Eyed Handsome Man couldn't make up her mind between a doctor or a lawyer man. It's pretty clear to me which she needed to choose

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

The core of the principle is quite simple - does the follower use deception in order to pass itself off as something that is the work and/or property of another?

 

[warden]

So it seems in U.S. law that what Abobe has said, namely " Ansel Adams style photographs but AI generated" is enough to get you sued despite the use of the word style and literally being "bashed over the head" by the very clear phrase AI generate

Nobody has sued anybody – the parties are just talking and Adobe seems to be making the right adjustments to their products and services. I doubt very much that this matter will escalate, at least with the Adams trust.

 

[Steven Lee]

I'm just wondering what you find problematic about the AA foundation complaints?

Ansel Adams, like all photographers, studied light and composition by looking at art created by other people: paintings, photographs, etc. Then, like any human being, he made his own images by incorporating ideas he liked. Everyone does this. Indeed, I have seen hundreds of photographs taken around Yosemite area mimicking Adams work, and I am sure you have seen them too. Which is absolutely fine, all art is derivative.

But when a computer does it (even badly), suddenly we have angry gatekeepers who are stuck in the past threatening those who're pushing progress forward. As a progressive, I see this as a red flag. The AA foundation deserves a heavy bitch-slap here.

Blaming the victim. Classic.

In this case they are the aggressor. But even if they weren't.... and I'm going on a tangent here: in the present day victim culture it would be healthy for the society to re-evaluate its willingness to volunteer to be a victim at a slightest provocation. In other words, victimhood loses all its meaning when it becomes hip & cool.

 

[retina_restoration]

Ansel Adams, like all photographers, studied light and composition by looking at art created by other people: paintings, photographs, etc. Then, like any human being, he made his own images by incorporating ideas he liked. Everyone does this. Indeed, I have seen hundreds of photographs taken around Yosemite area mimicking Adams work, and I am sure you have seen them too. Which is absolutely fine, all art is derivative.

But when a computer does it (even badly), suddenly we have angry gatekeepers who are stuck in the past threatening those who're pushing progress forward. As a progressive, I see this as a red flag. The AA foundation deserves a heavy bitch-slap here.



In this case they are the aggressor. But even if they weren't.... and I'm going on a tangent here: in the present day victim culture it would be healthy for the society to re-evaluate its willingness to volunteer to be a victim at a slightest provocation. In other words, victimhood loses all its meaning when it becomes hip & cool.

I have a hard time reconciling the fact that someone on an analog photography forum is attacking the Adams Foundation for advocating for their intellectual property rights.

 

[pentaxuser]

The core of the principle is quite simple - does the follower use deception in order to pass itself off as something that is the work and/or property of another?

That make sense to me and my reading of the principle you mention is: No and by the very use of the words that Abobe has used

pentaxuser

 

[Alex Benjamin]

The core of the principle is quite simple - does the follower use deception in order to pass itself off as something that is the work and/or property of another?

Nailed it.

That make sense to me and my reading of the principle you mention is: No and by the very use of the words that Abobe has used

pentaxuser

They used the words "Ansel Adams". These are precesely the words the Ansel Adams Trust objected to. And rightfully so. The use of these words are misleading in that they imply that there is a relationship, whose recognition is authorized, between Ansel Adams' work and the product being sold.

But when a computer does it (even badly), suddenly we have angry gatekeepers who are stuck in the past threatening those who're pushing progress forward. As a progressive, I see this as a red flag. The AA foundation deserves a heavy bitch-slap here.

I don't think you read the Ansel Adams Trust's post. Or you misread it. Nowhere do they object to the AI producing photographic works. They object to the Ansel Adams name being use to sell a product that has nothing to do with Ansel Adams. Same way you can't use Bugs Bunny's image to sell carrotts. I mean, that's basic copyright law, it has been going on for nearly a century, not sure what in the fact that AI is here involved makes it legitimate to suddenly question it.

Irony is that half the photographers here would probably have accused the Ansel Adams Trust of selling out — and maybe bitch-slaped them — had they willfully authorized Adobe to use his name in this context, especially with such poor artistic results.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Did any of you follow the attempt of Harley Davidson to patent the specific sound of their classic "hog" V engine, accompanied by litigation against Honda and Kawasaki for trying to produce the same sound? They eventually gave up the fight. I'm not interested in researching whether or not the H.D. brand name actually popped up in print in some competitor's ad or engineering prospectus. Everyone knew what it was they were deliberately trying to mimic.

In this case, a name registered to a marketing trust is front and center. Lawyer threats apparently haven't been issued yet, but there is a firm warning anyway, "Don't throw a rock at this hornet's nest, because there are a lot of potentially angry hornet's nests out there". The last thing Adobe would want at this early phase of the Ai game is this controversy cascading into a big class action suit, or a wide Federal ruling. It's in their own interest to self-monitor.

 

[Steven Lee]

I have a hard time reconciling the fact that someone on an analog photography forum is attacking the Adams Foundation for advocating for their intellectual property rights.

The property rights for those images belong to programmers who wrote the code which generated these images. They are employed by Adobe, and Adobe lets you have the results for $9.99 per month. The Ansel Adams Foundation has absolutely nothing to do with those images, and for that parasitic behavior they deserve to be thrown out of a helicopter into a pool full of sharks with lasers.

 

[Steven Lee]

I don't think you read the Ansel Adams Trust's post. Or you misread it. Nowhere do they object to the AI producing photographic works. They object to the Ansel Adams name being use to sell a product that has nothing to do with Ansel Adams.

Oh! If that's the case, thank you for clarifying. I misunderstood their intent indeed, and yet I am still not OK with their behavior. Essentially they are saying, if your interpretation is accurate, that I cannot hire a photographer and tell him to "make me a few images in Ansel Adams style". Which is, of course, a bunch of horseshit. The only irrelevant detail here is that a photographer is a machine.

 

[koraks]

if your interpretation is accurate, that I cannot hire a photographer and tell him to "make me a few images in Ansel Adams style".

No, see #17:

It's OK if you ask a photographer to take inspiration from AA to produce images for you. If you then sell those off as "buy your Ansel-Adams-like photos here", the trust will object.

Also, please - the foul language really isn't needed.

"Don't throw a rock at this hornet's nest, because there are a lot of potentially angry hornet's nests out there"

Ah, the dreaded recursive hornets' nest!

 

[Milpool]

The property rights for those images belong to programmers who wrote the code which generated these images. They are employed by Adobe, and Adobe lets you have the results for $9.99 per month. The Ansel Adams Foundation has absolutely nothing to do with those images, and for that parasitic behavior they deserve to be thrown out of a helicopter into a pool full of sharks with lasers.

Sharks with lasers seems like overkill lol.

 

[Don_ih]

The property rights for those images belong to programmers who wrote the code which generated these images.

If that's the case, Canon (for example) owns the photos you take using one of their cameras.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Alan, I think you may be a lawyer and I'm not, but I disagree. Nothing in the quoted text restricts its use to trademarks. As the wiki article states, it can protect even devices not registered as trademarks. In fact, that is the point of "trade dress" law - it protects concepts that are not or cannot be trademarked but still might cause confusion. For example, "Kodak" is a trademark, Kodak yellow is not - you can trademark a logo, but not a pure color. However, if someone sold film in the same-colors yellow and red box, Kodak could sue them for causing confusion in the marketplace.

Alan, this law totally applies. It's misleading in that it promises the user that his photograph with look like an Ansel Adams photograph. It's, in that, a misrepresentation of Ansel Adams' work. And they make a profit out of it.

It's textbook the law reddesert quoted.

I could be wrong. I;m not a lawyer, but it seems some other statute better protects the use of Ansel Adams's name other than this trademark statute. How is his name a trademark? It;s not like Kodak or GM or Ford Motors. It's just a person's name. If some company used my name to sell their pictures, would;n't some different advertising law prevent people from doing that without my agreement and payment? That seems to be another part of the law. Maybe there's a lawyer here who can clear this up.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

So it seems in U.S. law that what Abobe has said, namely " Ansel Adams style photographs but AI generated" is enough to get you sued despite the use of the word style and literally being "bashed over the head" by the very clear phrase AI generated

I struggle to see how this clear statement by Adobe renders it vulnerable to a lawsuit If say the Aston Martin car was the fasted over 0-60 for a road legal vehicle and another car maker wanted to make a comparison with its speed over 0-60 which was within a fraction of or even the same as the Aston Martin's and so advertised its car's acceleration as in the Aston Martin's class woukd that render it liable to a lawsuit in the U.S.?

Wow that is the kind of catch-all law that certainly makes being a lawyer an attractive profession. It certainly appears to promise riches to the lawyer representing the plaintiff and will of course deliver fees to the lawyer even if the plaintiff loses

I wonder why the beautiful daughter in the Buddy Holly song " Brown Eyed Handsome Man couldn't make up her mind between a doctor or a lawyer man. It's pretty clear to me which she needed to choose

pentaxuser

"After the lawyers are done, there won't be enough cheese left for a mouse to get a tooth in."

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Did any of you follow the attempt of Harley Davidson to patent the specific sound of their classic "hog" V engine, accompanied by litigation against Honda and Kawasaki for trying to produce the same sound? They eventually gave up the fight. I'm not interested in researching whether or not the H.D. brand name actually popped up in print in some competitor's ad or engineering prospectus. Everyone knew what it was they were deliberately trying to mimic.

In this case, a name registered to a marketing trust is front and center. Lawyer threats apparently haven't been issued yet, but there is a firm warning anyway, "Don't throw a rock at this hornet's nest, because there are a lot of potentially angry hornet's nests out there". The last thing Adobe would want at this early phase of the Ai game is this controversy cascading into a big class action suit, or a wide Federal ruling. It's in their own interest to self-monitor.

It begs the question. Where is Adobe getting their photos to use in creating AI pictures?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The property rights for those images belong to programmers who wrote the code which generated these images. They are employed by Adobe, and Adobe lets you have the results for $9.99 per month. The Ansel Adams Foundation has absolutely nothing to do with those images, and for that parasitic behavior they deserve to be thrown out of a helicopter into a pool full of sharks with lasers.

This reminds me of the joke where this brilliant developmental engineer met God and told him it wasn't a big deal to create Man. He could do it as well. So God said, "I'd like to see that." So the engineer reached down to the ground to gather up some dirt and God interrupted him.

"Get your own dirt".

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Essentially they are saying, if your interpretation is accurate, that I cannot hire a photographer and tell him to "make me a few images in Ansel Adams style".

As Koraks said, you've got it backwards. You can hire a photographer and tell him to "make a few images in Ansel Adams style". On the other hand, a photographer cannot advertise his practice by saying he makes photos that looks like Ansel Adams' photos. Even if he does make photos that look like Ansel Adams' photos: the "misrepresentation" and "misleading" parts of the law refer to the use of the name and making money out of it, not the actual photographic practice.

That said, I believe he probably could, in his advertisement, state that his photos of Yosemite are made "following the zone-system rules invented by Ansel Adams". A bit less misleading — associating his practice, rather than his works, to Ansel Adams is certainly more subtle —, but still the possibility of misrepresentation — does he really ? —, and I'm almost tempted to write to the AA Trust to see what they think.