Harvard’s sole defense was that photographers always own their photographs.

Evidence

Following the introductions, each side stated their case. Anton Metlitsky, Harvard’s lawyer, went first as the defendant and explained that Harvard’s biggest issue with our complaint was that photographs were always owned by the photographer. He argued that was the law, and our complaint was therefore without merit. I was dumbfounded, as were my attorneys, because Harvard was not the photographer. What was their property interest? They have still, to date, not answered this question. During Josh’s response, he countered, “But our claim is that [Harvard doesn’t] own them because [Renty and Delia] were the victims of criminal acts that created these daguerreotypes…. There’s no question that Harvard’s agent, Agassiz, and his accomplices committed crimes against Renty and Delia. As a matter of rock-solid tort principle law, they are not entitled to ownership of those daguerreotypes…. The only owner that would be entitled to those would be Renty and Delia, as victims. The only question Harvard won’t answer is, why don’t they just give them back?” — Tamara Lanier, From These Roots, 1183

Categorization

• XREF: Core doctrinal hinge of the whole case — connects to the book’s central thesis about property law as the afterlife of slavery and who owns the image of an enslaved person.