- Messages
- 4,604
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
I don't think this has been posted, but there is a bit of furore going on about the AI updating of Ansel Adams Moonrise: Hernandez photograph.
The man himself was enthusiastic about digital imaging, but I'm not sure about taking an iconic image, tweaking it with AI and selling it for $10,000.TBH, I reckon the man himself (AA) would have enjoyed that result, although perhaps he'd have enjoyed creating it himself rather more!
The © implications are a whole different issue...
Personally, I like both images but feel the AI adaptation a little overcooked for my taste. Certainly not $10,000's worth!
I think it probably goes beyond the legalities.I suppose it comes down to whether the work is still in copyright and if so, it qualifies or fails to qualify under the rules for exception.
American copyright law appears to be a minefield. So far as I understand it, up until 1976, protection of a registered item was 28 years and in 1976 this was revised to the life of the author plus 75 years.I think it probably goes beyond the legalities.
As for the legal side, I'm not sure if the copyright stays with the Trust, as long as it exists, or whether it still lapses after a set period.
I think it probably goes beyond the legalities.
As for the legal side, I'm not sure if the copyright stays with the Trust, as long as it exists, or whether it still lapses after a set period.
I can't back into the link I posted, but in one the things I read it said that the colouring was done by a named well-known artist (not that I had heard of them) using AI, and was part of as series they had created on several well known photographs.It’s just lazy isn’t it. Im all for trying new things, they could have paid a working artist to make it colour and theyd at least be some tangible added value
I don't think it is exactly like that, artists are using AI as "part of their work" and, as I said in another post, the work was done by a named apparently well known artist as part of a series of similar work.And, who do you sue? If the "artist" was a computer, can it be sued?
Does the prompt "Make a realistic color version of Ansel Adams’ iconic “Moonrise Over Hernandez”. imply simply colorizing the original or is it vague enough to simply include that as an option?
Yes, I looked it up as well.American copyright law appears to be a minefield. So far as I understand it, up until 1976, protection of a registered item was 28 years and in 1976 this was revised to the life of the author plus 75 years.
Whether this last applies to items which were created before 1976 I really don't know but this article suggests that it may be up to 95 years in certain circumstances...
Copyright law of the United States - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I guess I've picked up the wrong end of the stick here :-(
As I understand Disney was a big driver of this and protecting oldAmerican copyright law appears to be a minefield. So far as I understand it, up until 1976, protection of a registered item was 28 years and in 1976 this was revised to the life of the author plus 75 years.
Whether this last applies to items which were created before 1976 I really don't know but this article suggests that it may be up to 95 years in certain circumstances...
Copyright law of the United States - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Indeed.As I understand Disney was a big driver of this and protecting old
Mickey Mouse