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

[cliveh]

I seem to recall someone posting a coloured in HCB photograph on this site.

 

[Don_ih]

it could be evidence of honesty

There's no value to honesty. "I honestly claim this is someone else's photo I am stealing." doesn't absolve anyone.

There may be some wiggle room with the rights for that particular image that they know about and we don't. The Ansel Adams Trust seems intent on turning public opinion against the gallery - by drawing attention to the gallery. The whole scenario is likely as good for the Trust as it is for the gallery, in terms of publicity. Ansel needs to ring his bell every now and then.

The fact remains, though, that there is no question it is simply a colourization of his photo - the key words there being "his photo". It's not distinct enough to be derivative or transformative - it's just the same photo with some ink spilled on it.

 

[djdister]

I seem to recall someone posting a coloured in HCB photograph on this site.

 

[Don_ih]

I seem to recall someone posting a coloured in HCB photograph on this site.

Cartier-Bresson did, at times, use colour film. I'm sure most of his famous photos have been colourized by someone by now.

 

[IpseLux]

“Printed by master printer… so and so???”
Old Japanese adage: many colors blind the eye.
I find it insulting. But that’s just me. It seems it would be illegal.
Not for me, thanks.

 

[Hassasin]

Anyone who openly accepts Ai as an acceptable form of creating art is on the wrong side of logic, history, and legal underpinnings.

Not that this makes any difference to anyone who accepts Ai generated garbage as art.

 

[BobDavid]

No. No. No. The Ansel Adams estate will have the final word on this trash.

 

[Tel]

Maybe this was already mentioned (if so, my apologies) but you can buy a print of the colorized photo on ebay for 20 bucks...

 

[djdister]

Maybe this was already mentioned (if so, my apologies) but you can buy a print of the colorized photo on ebay for 20 bucks...

Or, you can just ask AI to generate a new one just like the one from Danziger gallery. What moron would pay money for it?

 

[snusmumriken]

Not that this makes any difference to anyone who accepts Ai generated garbage as art.

We’re getting dangerously near the question ‘What is art?’. I suspect it’s already the case that if we ran a blind test on random members of the public using a mixture of human- and AI-generated graphics, we’d find some of the latter being selected to represent art (vs non-art).

 

[Tel]

Or, you can just ask AI to generate a new one just like the one from Danziger gallery. What moron would pay money for it?

Oh, there may be a moron or two who's got $10K to drop on a worthless clone...still, we can hope that the gallery loses money on the venture.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

I checked your post 60. I don't understand what the copyright notes on the links mean, especially since one of them says Date of Creation in 1980, long after the original was done back in the early 1940s. SO the question I have is the Danziger photo one of the originals that lost it;s copyright and therefore able to be colorized? How can a later edition have a copyright that would affect the original earlier one?

 

[BrianShaw]

SO the question I have is the Danziger photo one of the originals that lost it;s copyright and therefore able to be colorized? How can a later edition have a copyright that would affect the original earlier one?

What makes you think that any of the originals "lost it;s copyright"? AI, Wikipedia, and Google search? You might want to ask an authoritative organization, who clearly mark a vintage image with a "modern" copyright date.

Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico

Explore the artists and artworks of our time at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art.

www.sfmoma.org

Long story, short... despite what AI, Wikipedia, or Google search indicate it appears that that AA and subsequently the AA Trust has maintained the copyright to their images in virtually all published forms. Trying to split hairs about which exact image AI used seems a bit of a waste of time. Not even an interesting thought-piece, I'm afraid. How this case turns out, when/if a legal challenge follows, is a matter of waiting to find out.

What I want to know is if anyone actually bought one (or more) of these colorized/postcardized master prints...

 

[Pieter12]

Statement by James Danziger - - Exhibitions - Danziger Gallery

Since its founding in 1990, the Danziger Gallery has established itself as one of the leading photography venues in the world, known for the originality and diversity of its programming, its representation of established photographers, and the influence of its new discoveries. The gallery was...

www.danzigergallery.com

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, that Danzinger rebuttal stinks, and sets a bad precedent if he gets away with it. The Ai rendering itself stinks, and demonstrates an actual callousness to the emotional response of AA himself to the light before him, and even dumbs down the scene itself to some kind of stereotype. "Colorized" says it all, even if the culprit denies that. Even attempting a stunt like this should put into question just how reputable a dealer he is to begin with. He should be publicly shamed. No sympathy from me.

 

[warden]

Statement by James Danziger - - Exhibitions - Danziger Gallery

Since its founding in 1990, the Danziger Gallery has established itself as one of the leading photography venues in the world, known for the originality and diversity of its programming, its representation of established photographers, and the influence of its new discoveries. The gallery was...

www.danzigergallery.com

Oops, I forgot to inform the Adams Trust but I definitely didn't forget to call my lawyer. Scumbag.

I see he represents some high profile photographers. I wonder if he will lose any, and if he plans to colorize those works too.

 

[Pieter12]

Oops, I forgot to inform the Adams Trust but I definitely didn't forget to call my lawyer. Scumbag.

I see he represents some high profile photographers. I wonder if he will lose any, and if he plans to colorize those works too.

Not unless they're in the public domain.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Maybe if William Wegman had posed one of his Weimaramer dogs in the foreground it might have some pop art merit; but as it is, I can only apply terms like corny, kitchy, and half-baked to it.

 

[BrianShaw]

Not unless they're in the public domain.

I wonder if Danzinger just took AI and Wikipedia's word for the copyright status. The "most respected copyright lawyer" might be a bluff. One would think that talking to the AA Trust beforehand would be what a most respected lawyer would do in this situation. All lawyers I know are so risk averse that they'd never recommend such a project without formal written consent even if some research indicates an image is in the public domain, especially since other instances of that image clearly are still under copyright protection.

Other than that, it was a very tempered and thoughtful statement.

The legal catfight will be fascinating...

 

[DREW WILEY]

Makes no difference. It's plagiarism plain and simple. Just a stupid colorized xerox of someone else's work they don't deserve credit for, and shouldn't be paid for. Nothing better to do, I guess.

 

[BrianShaw]

Makes no difference. It's plagiarism plain and simple. Just a stupid colorized xerox of someone else's work they don't deserve credit for, and shouldn't be paid for. Nothing better to do, I guess.

I couldn't help but notice that you used the tradename "Xerox" without includsion of tm marking. Bad Drew; LOL

And I thought it was a postcard, or post-card...

 

[DREW WILEY]

I didn't capitalize it. But some topics strike too close to home. One of my aunt's famous murals from the 1930's was plagiarized by another national muralist a decade later. He switched the faces and costumes somewhat, and substituted objects; but the entire composition was otherwise directly copied. A couple years ago a TV documentary came out claiming this particular guy had been forgotten by the art world because of discrimination. No, he was shunned, and his career cut short, because everyone back then recognized he was a rank plagiarist.
I still have some of the "cartoons" (full-sized overlays which were pin punched to mark out the composition on the plaster) as well as preliminary watercolor paintings, from my aunt's "real deal" mural earlier.

Same should apply in this case. It's not cool or chic. It's just a cheap and sleazy attempt to get away with something audacious, not involving any real creativity or craft of their own. Otherwise, he wouldn't have even bothered to ask his lawyers about it first. Perhaps a publicity stunt. I dunno, but hope it backfires.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

The guy is flailing in his statement.

He said he wanted to see what Ansel saw, to see the scene which prompted Ansel to stop and lug out the 8x10 camera.

The original print is a heroic balancing of tones from a cantankerous negative. If anyone had taken a colour photograph of the scene and didn't apply the same level of heroics to the print, it would be ghastly. Danziger merely produced a colour version of a highly dodged & burned B&W print, bearing little resemblance to the original scene.

My guess is he's thinking of the original print as a found object in a public space. He also uses the word 'transformative' in the wrong way. He will lose in court.

Sadly, there are some collectors who will buy the prints and hold onto them for their investment potential, as early examples of AI weaselling its way into the photographic fine arts world.

Hopefully any sold and remaining Danziger prints will be destroyed.

 

[djdister]

The guy is flailing in his statement.

He said he wanted to see what Ansel saw, to see the scene which prompted Ansel to stop and lug out the 8x10 camera.

The original print is a heroic balancing of tones from a cantankerous negative. If anyone had taken a colour photograph of the scene and didn't apply the same level of heroics to the print, it would be ghastly. Danziger merely produced a colour version of a highly dodged & burned B&W print, bearing little resemblance to the original scene.

My guess is he's thinking of the original print as a found object in a public space. He also uses the word 'transformative' in the wrong way. He will lose in court.

Sadly, there are some collectors who will buy the prints and hold onto them for their investment potential, as early examples of AI weaselling its way into the photographic fine arts world.

Hopefully any sold and remaining Danziger prints will be destroyed.

This ripoff artist will go the way of NFTs... https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/majority-nfts-dead-report-1234716174/

 

[MattKing]

This ripoff artist will go the way of NFTs... https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/majority-nfts-dead-report-1234716174/

The difference being that NFTs could have a viable commercial role if used prudently and conservatively, rather than merely a means toward achieving a speculative profit.