News
The trust said gallerist Peter Danziger’s AI-altered editions, offered at an art fair, “exploited Ansel’s name, reputation, and his most iconic image.”
The Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust has lambasted New York City gallerist Peter Danziger for offering AI-colorized editions of one of the late artist’s most recognized photos for sale at an art fair last month. In a recent online statement, the Trust said Danziger never notified them of his use of the photo, adding that it “exploited Ansel’s name, reputation, and his most iconic image.”
The gallerist pushed back against the Trust in a public statement yesterday, May 25, asserting that he “had every right to create a new and transformative artwork” because Adams’s black-and-white photo, “Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico” (1941), was in the public domain.
Danziger, whose namesake gallery had a booth at The Photography Show by the Association of International Photography Art Dealers (AIPAD) last April, exhibited an AI-generated image he fashioned using the following prompt: “Make a realistic color version of Ansel Adams’ iconic ‘Moonrise Over Hernandez.’” The untitled image was accompanied by a wall text disclosing the AI prompt and was displayed alongside new work by Hoda Afshar and Giuseppe Lo Schiavo, as well as pieces by Seydou Keïta, Matthew Porter, and Tod Papageorge.
Danziger had the image printed in editions of 10 in three different sizes for sale at the fair. The gallerist declined to disclose to Hyperallergic the number of prints sold, if any, or the asking prices.
In its May 23 statement, the Trust maintained that the gallerist hadn’t consulted or notified them before the work appeared at the AIPAD art fair.
“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,” the statement continued, also noting that correspondence with Danziger reportedly indicated that he was “pursuing a proposed commercial AI colorization venture involving other artists’ estates.”
The Trust did not immediately respond to Hyperallergic‘s inquiries about the relevant rights invoked in its notice to the gallerist.
Given how generative AI has sparked concerns and outrage across the arts and culture sector since the programs “learn” from artwork scraped directly from the internet without explicit consent, hundreds of commenters condemned Danziger’s use of generative AI on the Trust’s Instagram post of the statement.
Regardless, the Trust specified that it didn’t take issue with the use of AI or creative exploration, nodding to Adams’s own interest in how computers would come to impact the realm of photography. Rather, it was more ruffled by Danziger’s use of Adams’s name and work for commercial purposes.
“No one should trade on another person’s name, reputation, and labor for private commercial ends without consent and candor,” the Trust added. “The unauthorized exploitation of Ansel’s actively stewarded legacy reflects a gross failure of ethical and professional judgment.”
Reached by Hyperallergic, AIPAD stated that “this is a matter we are taking very seriously, and it is being addressed by AIPAD’s Board of Directors and Executive Directors.” The association said it holds its members and fair exhibitors to the “highest ethical standards,” adding that it had established an ethics committee in March to update and expand AIPAD’s bylaws with a new section addressing artificial intelligence.
In his statement, Danziger apologized to the Trust for not notifying them of his use of the image in advance and stated that, throughout his career, he has repeatedly stood up for and defended photographers whose work had been appropriated. However, he stressed that the generative AI picture “was done with great respect to the image and the artist,” noting that he wanted to create the same scene that encouraged Adams to pull over on a roadside and set up his camera to capture the moon ascending above an adobe church.
Generative AI’s rapid encroachment on the arts and culture sector has yielded backlash for years as artists, writers, and entertainment professionals demand stronger legal protections for their intellectual property and career longevity in a newfound era of “AI-slop.” The issue has become pressing as generative AI “art” continues to receive attention and acclaim, from the Sony World Photography Award to the Commonwealth Foundation’s Short Story Prize earlier this month.
