The colorization of Ansel Adams Moonrise Curious what…
0 reactions
The colorization of Ansel Adams Moonrise
Curious what people think of the Danziger Gallery choosing to create an AI colorized version of Ansel Adams iconic work "Moonrise" and sell limited edition prints for $10,000 at AIPAD (also known as The Photo Show) in NYC in April. A few things I've learned about what happened that might inform your opinion:
* The gallery did not seek the involvement of the Adams estate
* The gallery did not inform their own artists who were on display along side the piece
* The gallery offered no explanation or context for including the piece
* When the estate asked them to take it down, they said they weren't doing anything illegal (which MAY be true, but whether this piece is actually in the public domain is up for debate)
* The gallery put itself in direct competition with the human artists it represents. Since all sales $$ from this piece go to the gallery, doesn't it make it more likely they'll prioritize selling this piece.
* The gallery used Ansel's name and the involvement of the piece to try to get the permission of other photographers' estates to give permission for them to do this with their work.
What do you think? I think it's a very poor decision. And that's not about AI - which I think needs to have ethical standards of use, and this doesn't pass the ethics sniff test to me.
#hobby
Curious what people think of the Danziger Gallery choosing to create an AI colorized version of Ansel Adams iconic work "Moonrise" and sell limited edition prints for $10,000 at AIPAD (also known as The Photo Show) in NYC in April. A few things I've learned about what happened that might inform your opinion:
* The gallery did not seek the involvement of the Adams estate
* The gallery did not inform their own artists who were on display along side the piece
* The gallery offered no explanation or context for including the piece
* When the estate asked them to take it down, they said they weren't doing anything illegal (which MAY be true, but whether this piece is actually in the public domain is up for debate)
* The gallery put itself in direct competition with the human artists it represents. Since all sales $$ from this piece go to the gallery, doesn't it make it more likely they'll prioritize selling this piece.
* The gallery used Ansel's name and the involvement of the piece to try to get the permission of other photographers' estates to give permission for them to do this with their work.
What do you think? I think it's a very poor decision. And that's not about AI - which I think needs to have ethical standards of use, and this doesn't pass the ethics sniff test to me.
#hobby
| 1,000 mlx | |
| 2 | |
| 0 |