Harvard asserted photographer ownership without being the actual photographer

Evidence

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

• QUESTION: The unresolved question—Harvard’s actual theory of its own title—is the doctrinal hole the reader wants to be able to state precisely.