Ansel Adams’ trust says AI-colorized version of his work was exhibited without permission | The AI-generated version of ‘Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico’ was on display at AIPAD’s The Photography show

Why that’s like taking the Mona lisa and creating a photographic digital image of a real woman from the painting. What are we to do?

We can be mad about AI but some human asshole is the one who decided to generate and exhibit this.

A couple of details:

>Interestingly, the trust didn’t take issue with the involvement of AI, noting that Adams “was remarkably prescient about—and excited by—the potential of computers to transform photography.” The issue is that the exhibitor allegedly just straight up ripped off the artist’s work to make money off of it.
>
>”The Trust was not consulted or notified before the work appeared,” the Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust said. “Once alerted, we reached out to James Danziger in real time, notifying him of the Trust’s rights, and asking for the work to be removed. Correspondence shared with the Trust shows that, despite our formal notice, Mr. Danziger subsequently leveraged Ansel’s name, ‘Moonrise,’ and the AIPAD presentation while pursuing a proposed commercial AI colorization venture involving other artists’ estates.” The statement goes on to denounce the nonconsensual use of an artist’s name and work for commercial purposes, calling the incident “a gross failure of ethical and professional judgment.”

This is an unsurprising development given the continued lack of regulations and cultural norms around the (mis)use of these technologies. If people are willing to do this to well established artists with significant resources, then it’s also clear that this is happening to much smaller artists with far fewer resources at their disposal.

this lawsuit is interesting… I forsee a “Streisand Effect”

I think it’s part of a larger plan to destroy copyrights through brute force. Blatantly violate the law on a large scale and muddle who is the responsible party until the rule is moot. Granted they can afford to do this. Try it at home and you’ll have a SWAT team at your door 

> Interestingly, the trust didn’t take issue with the involvement of AI, noting that Adams “was remarkably prescient about—and excited by—the potential of computers to transform photography.” The issue is that the exhibitor allegedly just straight up ripped off the artist’s work to make money off of it.

Huh, I wonder if he would differentiate between using a computer to airbrush a photo and using AI to just straight up copy it.

For reference, the foundation’s statement from their IG post:

>The Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust was established by Ansel Adams to steward his artistic and environmental legacies, consistent with his own ethos and intentions. The Trust did not authorize, endorse, consent to, or acquiesce in the “AI-generated color version” of “Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico” exhibited and offered for sale by Danziger Gallery at The Photography Show presented by AIPAD in April.
>
>This was a substantial editioned offering at a major international sales event. It exploited Ansel’s name, reputation, and his most iconic image, while failing to identify any human artist responsible for its creation.
>
>The Trust was not consulted or notified before the work appeared. Once alerted, we reached out to James Danziger in real time, notifying him of the Trust’s rights, and asking for the work to be removed.
>
>Correspondence shared with the Trust shows that, despite our formal notice, Mr. Danziger subsequently leveraged Ansel’s name, “Moonrise,” and the AIPAD presentation while pursuing a proposed commercial AI colorization venture involving other artists’ estates.
>
>Ansel was an innovator who expanded the expressive and technical possibilities of his medium. He was remarkably prescient about—and excited by—the potential of computers to transform photography. The Trust’s concerns are not about AI or creative experimentation in the abstract.
>
>This is fundamentally about artists’ rights and moral rights—and respect for human dignity.
>
>No one should trade on another person’s name, reputation, and labor for private commercial ends without consent and candor. The unauthorized exploitation of Ansel’s actively stewarded legacy reflects a gross failure of ethical and professional judgment.
>
>Few figures fought harder than Ansel to secure photography’s place as fine art, or contributed more to the cultural conditions that gave rise to today’s photography market. That this episode occurred at AIPAD is especially egregious and disheartening.
>
>The Trust is committed to defending Ansel’s legacy as necessary and will continue to address this matter through the appropriate channels. We are grateful to all who have expressed concern, support, and solidarity.

From this language it certainly looks like they’re gearing up for a fight.

AIPAC is out of pocket with this one.

Taking an ansel adams photo, a guy literally globally famous for his absolute mastery of black and white contrast, and running it through a cheap ai colorizer is just objectively disrespectful tbh. tech bros really have zero media literacy or respect for the actual medium dude.

I can’t even imagine wanting to see colorized versions of Ansel Adams photos.

i think in particular Ansel Adams’ work colorized against the will of the trust is an abomination. What is so incredible about Adams is how he made black and white unspeakably beautiful and breathtaking. I pity the sad 21st century human who sees the colorized version and says “much better,” unable to see the beauty of the original.

The trust would have a lawyer so let’s see how this goes for this “artist.”

A bunch of years ago I worked at a thrift store in Berkeley and what came in once was a big box of these cool photos of nature on slides. I looked closely and at the time I didn’t think too much of it but it was a bunch of ansel adams photograph negatives. Someone came in and bought the whole box for like 800 bucks. I should have taken it home.