The Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust has strongly criticized New York City gallerist James Danziger for selling AI-colorized versions of Ansel Adams‘s famed photograph “Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico” (1941). The Trust’s recent online statement expressed their outrage at the art fair event last month, accusing Danziger of exploiting Adams’s name and legacy without consent.
Danziger countered the Trust’s claims in a public statement on May 25, defending his actions on the grounds that the original photograph is in the public domain. He asserted his right to create what he described as “a new and transformative artwork.” Displayed at The Photography Show by the Association of International Photography Art Dealers (AIPAD) in April, the image was crafted using an AI prompt to realistically colorize Adams’s iconic scene. The piece was sold as part of an edition of 10 prints, available in three sizes, though Danziger did not reveal sales figures or pricing.
According to the Trust’s May 23 statement, they were not informed about Danziger’s use of the photograph until after the fair. They immediately contacted him, asserting their rights and requesting removal of the images. Their concerns extend beyond Adams’s work, as the correspondence reportedly included plans for future AI ventures involving other artists’ estates.
Generative AI and ethical considerations
The debate reflects wider tensions in the art world as generative AI emerges rapidly. Many fear these technologies threaten intellectual property rights, as artworks can be generated from images scraped online without consent. Public reaction was swift, with hundreds criticizing Danziger’s AI use on the Trust’s Instagram. Despite this, the Trust clarified their issue is not with AI or creative innovation itself. Ansel Adams was open to the evolving impact of technology on photography.
What troubled them was the commercial exploitation of Adams’s name and work. They argued that “No one should trade on another person’s name, reputation, and labor for private commercial ends without consent and candor.” The Trust labeled the act as a failure in ethical and professional judgment.
For insight into protecting art in today’s digital age, learn how fine art insurance safeguards works during transit and beyond.
Danziger expressed regret for not informing the Trust beforehand, and asserted the AI image was made with respect for Adams, intending to capture the evocative scene that once inspired Adams himself to halt his journey and set up his camera to seize the moonlit landscape.
In reaction to the growing concerns surrounding AI, AIPAD released a statement via Hyperallergic, noting the seriousness of the matter. The association emphasized its high ethical standards and announced the establishment of an ethics committee in March to refine their bylaws concerning artificial intelligence. Meanwhile, the influence of generative AI on the arts continues to be scrutinized, spotlighted by attention garnered from significant accolades like the Sony World Photography Award and recognition such as the Commonwealth Foundation’s Short Story Prize.
Exploring the intersection of technology and traditional art, check out how art, technology, and online fun blend in contemporary pursuits.
Source: hyperallergic.com