Ansel Adams Trust condemns unauthorised AI colourised work

The Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust has raised concerns over what it describes as the unauthorised use of Ansel Adams’s name and work in an “AI-generated colour version” of his iconic photograph shot in 1942 Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico, which was recently exhibited and offered for sale at a major international photography fair.

The work appeared at The Photography Show, presented by the Association of International Photography Art Dealers (AIPAD), via Danziger Gallery.

The artwork, didn't have a title but was headlined A.I. GENERATED, From the prompt: Make a realistic colour version of Ansel Adams' iconic "Moonrise Over Hernandez". Danziger had the image printed in editions of 10, in three different sizes for sale at the fair.

In a statement, the Trust said the work “exploited Ansel’s name, reputation, and his most iconic image, while failing to identify any human artist responsible for its creation.”

It added: “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 authorise, endorse, consent to, or acquiesce in the ‘AI-generated colour version’ of ‘Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico’ exhibited and offered for sale by Danziger Gallery at The Photography Show presented by AIPAD in April.”

The Trust also said it was not contacted prior to the work being shown. “The Trust was not consulted or notified before the work appeared,” it 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.”

It further alleges that, after formal objections were raised, references to Adams’ work continued in related commercial discussions. “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 colourisation venture involving other artists’ estates.”

While strongly objecting to the commercial use of the image, the Trust made clear its issue is not with artificial intelligence itself. “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.”

Instead, it framed the dispute as one of consent and rights. “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 candour.”

Ironically, Ansel Adams did take photos in both colour and black & white over his long career and at the time of this photo – he would have had access to colour film.

The Trust said it will continue to pursue the matter through appropriate channels and defend Adams’ legacy, while thanking supporters who have spoken out.

Photographer Pete Souza said he had “collaborated on this statement as a friend of the Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust,” describing the situation as “morally wrong” and warning it “endangers the rights of all photographers.”

Danzigers Gallery's response

Interestingly, AI images cannot be copyrighted, so the AI image 'created' from an AI prompt for Danziger exhibition can technically also be copied. The US ruling for AI copyright law can be found in the US National Archives here. 

However, the law becomes murky when it comes to 'human intervention' when 'adding' or modifying the image.

It is going to be interesting to follow the case, as James Danziger made a response on the Danziger website to Ansel Adams Trust's condemnation by not only mentioning that the image is technically in the public domain, but also wrote "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."

As to what the 'extensive human intervention, and refining' is – is open to debate, as technical changes such as sharpening an image, or 'altering colour' is not the same as 'being creative'. So this whole event may open a can of worms when it comes to copyright. (see  – Andy Warhol copied & modified photos – and settled out of court. BELOW)

In regards to the music industry, just copying or sampling ANY part of another music track, then adding your own sound, vocals, will still result in loosing up to 100% of royalties.

Historic photos and copyright

First published in 1942, the photograph's US copyright lapsed when the required 28-year renewal was never filed with the US Copyright Office, technically placing it in the American public domain.

Yet while the original image may be free to use within the United States, Australian law does not observe old US registration formalities. Under international treaties, protection may still apply locally, meaning unauthorised publication on an Australian website remains a risk for infringement.

Under Australian law, determining if a photograph is still protected by copyright depends entirely on a historical cutoff date: any photograph taken before 1 January 1955 has permanently entered the public domain and is completely free to use without permission.

For any image captured on or after 1 January 1955, the current standard matches other artistic works, meaning copyright endures for the life of the photographer plus 70 years from the end of the calendar year they passed away.

If the photographer is unknown, protection lasts for 70 years from when the image was first made public. It is also worth noting that while older images may be legally free of copyright, Australia enforces strict moral rights, meaning you must always attribute the original photographer and avoid any derogatory treatment or manipulation that could harm their professional reputation.

You can find out more about Australian copyright law and photography on the National Library website.

Andy Warhol also copied & modified photos – and settled out of court

There is a widespread misconception that Andy Warhol copied famous photographs with legal impunity. In reality, Warhol was sued multiple times during his career by photographers like Patricia Caulfield and Charles Moore, whose work he appropriated for his famous Flowers and Jackie Kennedy series.

He avoided public legal precedents and created an illusion of immunity simply by opening his wallet and settling these disputes privately out of court. For decades, the art world assumed his iconic screenprints were protected under the "fair use" doctrine as transformative art, believing that his distinct style and commentary gave the images a completely new meaning that legally shielded him from infringement claims.

This illusion completely shattered in May 2023 when the United States Supreme Court handed down a landmark 7–2 ruling against the Andy Warhol Foundation in Warhol v. Goldsmith.

The case arose after the foundation licensed an unauthorised series of screenprints Warhol had created based on a 1981 studio portrait of Prince taken by photographer Lynn Goldsmith. The Supreme Court firmly rejected the idea that celebrity artists possess a special privilege to appropriate others' work, ruling that because both the original photograph and Warhol’s print served the exact same commercial purpose – illustrating a magazine profile – it directly infringed upon the photographer's livelihood.

Today, the law is explicitly clear: high-profile artists cannot copy a photographer's creative labour without permission or compensation.