NYC Gallery Insists it Has “Every Right” to AI-Colorize Ansel Adams’ Most Iconic Photo

New York’s Danziger Gallery recently got under fire after exhibiting an AI-generated color version of Adams’ “Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico” at the AIPAD Photography Show in April. The image was created and exhibited without the Trust’s knowledge, and Danziger Gallery has responded to criticism from the Ansel Adams Trust, claiming they “had every right to create a new and transformative work.”

Gallery founder James Danziger published a statement on May 25, saying the decision was legally sound.

“I had long believed the image was in the public domain but to confirm this beyond doubt, I hired one of the most respected copyright lawyers in the country to insure this was the case.  It was indeed confirmed to be in the public domain and I was free to create a transformative color rendition of the image and to exhibit and sell the resulting prints.”

The image was offered for sale at the fair, which ran April 22 through April 26 at the Park Avenue Armory in New York City. It was labeled “A.I. GENERATED” and listed as printed by master printer Esteban Mauchi. So, he took someone else’s photo, AI-generated it in color (didn’t even bother to colorize it himself), and offered it for sale. Cool, cool, cool. But hey, he did apologize for not telling the Trust about this project in advance.

The Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust said in a statement it “did not authorize, endorse, consent to, or acquiesce” to the work being exhibited or offered for sale. They claim that the piece “exploited Ansel’s name, reputation, and his most iconic image, while failing to identify any human artist responsible for its creation.” The Trust says no one notified them before the work appeared. Once they were alerted, they reached out to Danziger to have it removed, and it appears that this hasn’t happened.

“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.” 

Several prominent photographers responded in the comments of the Trust’s post. Longtime White House photographer Pete Souza called the decision “morally wrong” and said it “endangers the rights of all photographers.” Pulitzer Prize-winning photojournalist David Hume Kennerly, who knew Adams personally, wrote that the photographer “would have hated this rip-off.”

The Trust has pushed back on unauthorized use of Adams’ name in an AI context before. In 2024, they called out Adobe for selling AI-generated stock images marketed as “Ansel Adams-Style Photography.” At the time, the Trust stated: “We don’t have a problem with anyone taking inspiration from Ansel’s photography, but we strenuously object to the unauthorized use of his name to sell products of any kind, including digital products, and this includes AI-generated output.” Adobe subsequently removed the content.

In his own statement, Danziger said he generated this “with great respect to the image and the artist.”

When it was exhibited it was very clearly attributed as to exactly what it was. (See the actual wall label above).  As for the print itself, while A.I. served as the starting point, the final image involved extensive human intervention, editing, proofing, and refinement over many months. My goal was to create an image that felt visually convincing and compelling on its own terms while remaining grounded in admiration for the original photograph. As far as I was concerned, I would only show or sell the image if I felt it was perfect.

I will refrain from commenting on this any further because I’m finding it hard to be nice and civilized. If you’re finding it easier to put your thoughts in words, feel free to share them in the comments. Do you think this was fair on Danziger’s part?

[via PetaPixel]

---