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

[BrianShaw]

My bet is, ultimately, the Ansel Trust will gain the most. They have the greatest catalogue and will benefit from the attention. Even the people who approve of the Danzinger print would not consider the Ansel Trust "wrong".

So there are no damages to speak of. And the punitive penalty for an "innocent transgression" of copyright is about $275. It's all a tempest in AEK's proverbial teacup.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Yes, both Danzinger and the Ansel Adams Publishing Trust got some attention. Who do you think is making the most money from this event: Danzinger Gallery, AAPT, or good ol' Ansel?

All of them. Maybe none of them. If the Trust was smart, they'd start licensing his images to be put on mugs etc. Now that everyone is aware there's copyright on at least some of his pictures, everyone will start to sell his pictures on whatever. What's interesting is what's going to happen to the value of existing prints? If they have Adam's signature, they could actually go up in value, although the opposite might happen.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I wonder if it was Peter Lik who "bought" it?

MAybe he'll produce an Adams that's really large, one that;s back lit?

 

[BrianShaw]

All of them. Maybe none of them.

Chump change or no change... all the same to me.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

So there are no damages to speak of. And the punitive penalty for an "innocent transgression" of copyright is about $275. It's all a tempest in AEK's proverbial teacup.

How can there be damages at all?. The Trust apparently acknowledges the picture is in the public domain because they failed to renew the copyright. If they sued, it would be unethical and illegal, knowing they had a false claim. Danziger would countersue for besmirching his reputation. He would not only get an award for his legal expenses, but an award for defamation.

 

[BrianShaw]

The Trust apparently acknowledges the picture is in the public domain because they failed to renew the copyright.

I must have missed that. The initial statement was silent on that specific topic. Being silent on a topic doesn't acknowledge or not acknowledge much at all. They also never said whether one puts clotted cream and then jam on a scone or vice versa. Can you please point to where the Trust acknowledged that the image is in the public domain, or that they failed to renew the copyright?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Alan, why would they license images to be put on mugs for maybe a two cent royalty apiece, when they already gain from all the postcards, greeting cards, etc under their own sales apparatus? Gosh, how do you think the "Ansel Adams Gallery" started out in the first place? It was Best Studio, owned by his to-be father-law, a Yosemite gift shop selling ceramic chipmunks and painted pine cones, and knick-knacks with his pictures on them. Of course, the Trust is a slightly different but related entity. ... I did accidentally run into a Peter Lik equivalent of "Gates the Valley" once - all the Yosemite cliffs ultra bright red (astronomically and geologically impossible there), rather poor inkjet printing - but I didn't linger long - I almost vomited (literally).

It also just happens to be that Ansel can't sign anything anymore, if you haven't heard yet. That would be fraud. Even the prints made by his assistants using his own negatives
just received his initials at most, not his full signature. Those sold in little portfolios in Best Studios, ten prints for $40. Those versions still aren't worth much - maybe a few hundred per print at most.

Too bad we old hill country locals aren't around as much. Back then, one could just slip a bear a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, and they'd take care of any obnoxious photographers for you.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The Gallery is technically an authorized concession inside the Park; but most if not all the the Adams prints they sell, and especially repro images, or custom print orders involving Alan Ross, must somehow involve the Trust. Of course, anyone, including family members, who already owns prints can sell them as they please. Ansel's daughter set up her own little gallery for awhile just outside Lee Vining, east of the Park; but that has since closed down.

I just mentioned the Gallery due to Alan's illustrated mug quip. I've dispatched a bear to New Jersey with a carnation on his lapel. But they also do generate a mountain of international goodwill towards Adam's imagery. It's right in the center of the commercialized part of Yosemite Valley, which in fact is a small city this time of year, replete with horrendous traffic, competition for parking space, its own jail, medical clinic, etc. Up to 30,000 people at a time crammed into the Valley itself (which is only 8% of the overall Park).

There are good people running that little gallery. Don't expect to see any colorized prints there. In fact, the type of people who do visit there would probably be aghast. They appreciate historical authenticity.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I must have missed that. The initial statement was silent on that specific topic. Being silent on a topic doesn't acknowledge or not acknowledge much at all. They also never said whether one puts clotted cream and then jam on a scone or vice versa. Can you please point to where the Trust acknowledged that the image is in the public domain, or that they failed to renew the copyright?

I got it from AI. Maybe another hallucination on its part. It could be why Danziger also claims his colorized version was transformative. If so, then that would protect him even if the copyright was still in force. If the Trust renewed it, what did they renew? I asked AI again and got an answer as follows, different than the first time. So who knows?

Did the Ansel Adams Trust renew the negative or the different prints?

In the context of the 1909 Copyright Act, copyright registration attached to a specific published work (the print/reproduction in a publication), not the physical negative itself. Under that framework, protecting the published work inherently protected the underlying image captured on the negative.

Here is how that technicality plays out in the current debate regarding Moonrise:

1. The Legal Ground: What Had to Be Renewed​

Under the 1909 Act, a photographer didn't copyright a "negative" in the abstract. Copyright was triggered by publication with notice.

• Moonrise was first published in the U.S. Camera Annual 1943 (released in late 1942).
• To maintain protection for that image, a renewal application had to be filed with the U.S. Copyright Office during the 28th year following that specific publication date (between late 1969 and 1970).

2. The Current Dispute: Did They Miss the Renewal?​

The ongoing debate stems from the fact that legal researchers hired by the Danziger Gallery could not find a standalone renewal record for Moonrise or the specific 1943 U.S. Camera publication in the standard copyright databases during that 1969–1970 window. Because of this apparent clerical gap, the gallery’s legal team asserts that the underlying image technically slipped into the U.S. public domain.

3. The Trust's Position: Protecting the Manifestation of the Prints​

The Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust strongly disputes that the image is free for commercial exploitation, but noticeably, their public pushback has leaned heavily into moral rights, trademark, and the right of publicity (trading on Adams' name and reputation) rather than a simple copyright infringement claim.

Furthermore, from a pure photography standpoint, copyright protects distinct derivative works. Even if someone argues that the original, flat 1943 publication lacked a renewal:

• Adams spent decades heavily manipulating, burning, and dodging the negative to create his famous late-career prints (the ones with the deep, dramatic black skies).
• Each substantially altered, newly published master print iteration can carry its own separate derivative copyright protection based on the extensive human darkroom artistry involved.

So, while the gallery claims the original 1941 capture is in the public domain due to a missing 1970 renewal entry, the Trust maintains active stewardship over Adams' legacy, his name, and the specific, iconic modern print iterations that everyone recognizes today.

 

[Milpool]

Incidentally they’ve recently added this very early print of Moonrise to the inventory if anyone is interested.

Moonrise Hernandez, New Mexico

Moonrise Hernandez, New Mexico is an Original Photograph by Ansel Adams

www.anseladams.com

The Gallery is technically an authorized concession inside the Park; but most if not all the the Adams prints they sell, and especially repro images, or custom print orders involving Alan Ross, must somehow involve the Trust. Of course, anyone, including family members, who already owns prints can sell them as they please. Ansel's daughter set up her own little gallery for awhile just outside Lee Vining, east of the Park; but that has since closed down.

I just mentioned the Gallery due to Alan's illustrated mug quip. I've dispatched a bear to New Jersey with a carnation on his lapel. But they also do generate a mountain of international goodwill towards Adam's imagery. It's right in the center of the commercialized part of Yosemite Valley, which in fact is a small city this time of year, replete with horrendous traffic, competition for parking space, its own jail, medical clinic, etc. Up to 30,000 people at a time crammed into the Valley itself (which is only 8% of the overall Park).

There are good people running that little gallery. Don't expect to see any colorized prints there. In fact, the type of people who do visit there would probably be aghast. They appreciate historical authenticity.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Alan, why would they license images to be put on mugs for maybe a two cent royalty apiece, when they already gain from all the postcards, greeting cards, etc under their own sales apparatus? Gosh, how do you think the "Ansel Adams Gallery" started out in the first place? It was Best Studio, owned by his to-be father-law, a Yosemite gift shop selling ceramic chipmunks and painted pine cones, and knick-knacks with his pictures on them. Of course, the Trust is a slightly different but related entity. ... I did accidentally run into a Peter Lik equivalent of "Gates the Valley" once - all the Yosemite cliffs ultra bright red (astronomically and geologically impossible there), rather poor inkjet printing - but I didn't linger long - I almost vomited (literally).

It also just happens to be that Ansel can't sign anything anymore, if you haven't heard yet. That would be fraud. Even the prints made by his assistants using his own negatives
just received his initials at most, not his full signature. Those sold in little portfolios in Best Studios, ten prints for $40. Those versions still aren't worth much - maybe a few hundred per print at most.

Too bad we old hill country locals aren't around as much. Back then, one could just slip a bear a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, and they'd take care of any obnoxious photographers for you.

So there's an Ansel Adams Gallery and an Ansel Adams Trust. This just confuses the whole situation. Who own the copyrights if they exist? Who authorizes the Gallery to publish his pictures on postcards and greeting cards? Maybe the Gallery and the Trust will both sue Danziger. From the ethical situation everyone is complaining about regarding Danziger's colorization being tacky, if Adams' postcards, greeting cards and other crap is already being sold by the Gallery, how can anyone complain about what Danziger is doing? It's just more of the same, maybe better.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The Gallery is technically an authorized concession inside the Park; but most if not all the the Adams prints they sell, and especially repro images, or custom print orders involving Alan Ross, must somehow involve the Trust. Of course, anyone, including family members, who already owns prints can sell them as they please. Ansel's daughter set up her own little gallery for awhile just outside Lee Vining, east of the Park; but that has since closed down.

I just mentioned the Gallery due to Alan's illustrated mug quip. I've dispatched a bear to New Jersey with a carnation on his lapel. But they also do generate a mountain of international goodwill towards Adam's imagery. It's right in the center of the commercialized part of Yosemite Valley, which in fact is a small city this time of year, replete with horrendous traffic, competition for parking space, its own jail, medical clinic, etc. Up to 30,000 people at a time crammed into the Valley itself (which is only 8% of the overall Park).

There are good people running that little gallery. Don't expect to see any colorized prints there. In fact, the type of people who do visit there would probably be aghast. They appreciate historical authenticity.

How are the Gallery's postcards and greeting cards less tacky than Danziger's colorized version, printed large by a professional? Please don't send bears. We have our own in New Jersey.

 

[BrianShaw]

So there's an Ansel Adams Gallery and an Ansel Adams Trust. This just confuses the whole situation. Who own the copyrights if they exist? Who authorizes the Gallery to publish his pictures on postcards and greeting cards? …

I asked AI, on your behalf, to explain. It sez, as Drew mentioned;

The Ansel Adams Gallery (operating as Best's Studio, Inc.) is a family-owned business and has a close, authorized relationship with the Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust. The gallery pays licensing fees and royalties to the Trust for the authorized reproduction and sale of Adams' work in formats like notecards, calendars, and matted prints. [1, 2, 3]

BTW, AI is not very supportive of putting Adams’ Moonrise on coffee mugs or tea cups. But pointed to several other “Moonrise “ photos/images on coffee mugs.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I asked AI, on your behalf, to explain. It sez, as Drew mentioned;

The Ansel Adams Gallery (operating as Best's Studio, Inc.) is a family-owned business and has a close, authorized relationship with the Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust. The gallery pays licensing fees and royalties to the Trust for the authorized reproduction and sale of Adams' work in formats like notecards, calendars, and matted prints. [1, 2, 3]

BTW, AI is not very supportive of putting Adams’ Moonrise on coffee mugs or tea cups. But pointed to several other “Moonrise “ photos/images on coffee mugs.

Leaving aside the copyright issue, a lot of the original complaints about the colorization was that it was tacky and impinged on Ansel Adams work. It brought it down to a level of commercialization. But since the Adams Gallery itself sells cheaply made notepads and other trivial crap with Ansel's photos, how can anyone complain about a colorization done properly by a professional? The tackiness complaint doesn't hold up. Frankly, the Trust and Gallery must be terrified that Danziger might start selling notepads of his colorized version. Maybe teacups.

 

[BrianShaw]

Have you ever seen what is sold at the AA Gallery? They sell some well-produced reproductions. Not sure why you keep calling their products cheaply made trivial crap.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Have you ever seen what is sold at the AA Gallery? They sell some well-produced reproductions. Not sure why you keep calling their products cheaply made trivial crap.

Some of their products are cheap crap. The Gallery sells Ansel cards for $2.95. Real collectors may feel the $10,000 Danziger colorized Moonrise version would look great on their wall next to their $100,000 original BW Moonrise print they already own. The point is the Gallery has already commercialized Adams' work and sells trivial crap. To argue that the colorized version is tacky by comparison doesn't hold water.

 

[BrianShaw]

Oy vey…

 

[koraks]

I see the discussion has reached the point where we're exploring whose AI is the best at tackling the issue. I think we need to break out the API's on our AI tools so we can connect them directly and the human participants can go and have a coffee or something while the AI's continue the back & forth on their own.

 

[Vaughn]

Oy vey…

...yes indeed. Uninformed opinions are cheap crap.

I have been represented by, and have given workshops for, the Ansel Adams Gallery for the past couple decades or so. They sell my photographs. I am familiar with their products. The staff (and programs) are an incredible information/educational source of the 'trio' of Photrio (analog, digital, hybrid) for the general National Park crowd. And, granted, they are a high-end gift shop...it is not a not-for-profit enterprise. But they sell handmade craft and artwork, supporting many photographers and other artisans...as well as postcards. And they have an excellent collection of books for sale.

 

[Don_ih]

Postcards, calendars, etc., don't diminish the value of a genuine print of the image. No one expects them to be a replacement. No one believes photo books diminish the value of a print, either. All of those things generate a stream of revenue, which tends to be necessary for running a business. Also, very few people are actually collectors, even if they appreciate the photos. How many signed or stamped original photographs do people here own - other than their own - and this is a photography forum.

Incidentally, there are sites that offer prints of Anselm Adams photos that are in the public domain (go search for some). I didn't find any selling Moonrise.

Maybe the impact on the Adams Trust should be ignored in this discussion. The problem of someone using AI to generate a colourized version of someone else's photo then claim it as their own distinct artwork is actually more significant.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Postcards, calendars, etc., don't diminish the value of a genuine print of the image. No one expects them to be a replacement. No one believes photo books diminish the value of a print, either. All of those things generate a stream of revenue, which tends to be necessary for running a business. Also, very few people are actually collectors, even if they appreciate the photos. How many signed or stamped original photographs do people here own - other than their own - and this is a photography forum.

Incidentally, there are sites that offer prints of Anselm Adams photos that are in the public domain (go search for some). I didn't find any selling Moonrise.

Maybe the impact on the Adams Trust should be ignored in this discussion. The problem of someone using AI to generate a colourized version of someone else's photo then claim it as their own distinct artwork is actually more significant.

Don, If there are already sites selling Adams ' photos in the public domain, what's the big issue with Danziger's Moonrise (assuming it's in the public domain?) That's the whole point of the public domain - to end exclusive rights and allow other artists and business people legal permission to create and sell artistic variations. OK. It's a colorized version. However, would we accept others imposing their artistic standards on us? And while most of us couldn't afford an original Moonrise for $100K, we could afford a postcard replication or maybe a $6,000 or $10,000 colorized version.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

...yes indeed. Uninformed opinions are cheap crap.

I have been represented by, and have given workshops for, the Ansel Adams Gallery for the past couple decades or so. They sell my photographs. I am familiar with their products. The staff (and programs) are an incredible information/educational source of the 'trio' of Photrio (analog, digital, hybrid) for the general National Park crowd. And, granted, they are a high-end gift shop...it is not a not-for-profit enterprise. But they sell handmade craft and artwork, supporting many photographers and other artisans...as well as postcards. And they have an excellent collection of books for sale.

Danziger Gallery is a high-end seller as well, for over 60 years. He sells $100,000 BW Moorise prints as well as $10,000 colorized versions. He doesn't sell postcards as far as I know. And calling my opinions "cheap crap" is a personal insult. I'd appreciate it if you attacked my positions, not me. We're all entitled to our beliefs here.

 

[Don_ih]

what's the big issue with Danziger's Moonrise

I don't know how many more times I can state it.

I literally just said it.

 

[BrianShaw]

... generate a colourized version of someone else's photo then claim it as their own distinct artwork is actually more significant.

That's fair game with stuff that's in the public domain. The artwork in question was described as a colorization of Ansel Adams' monochromatic image, not "their own". Proper citation was made in accordance with accepted academic integrity.

 

[BrianShaw]

If the objections come down to the ethical "it's legal and accepted but shouldn't be done" argument, then this discussion is DOA and destine to keep going around in circles because AI is reading it too and will keep repeating both sides.