Slave-made daguerreotypes are the proceeds of robbery and belong to descendants

Evidence

Most compelling was her argument for restitution: “People committed serious crimes in the course of taking these photographs…. If Agassiz and his cohorts wrestled enslaved people’s property from them through violence or the threat of violence, then the daguerreotypes are the proceeds of robbery…. And, if the images cannot be separated from the pictures, as indeed they can’t, then the daguerreotypes themselves are the fruits of taking through fear of force. Consequently, a commitment to nonviolence—or even common sense—militates that Harvard should not now own these objects.” — Tamara Lanier, From These Roots, 663

Categorization

• DEFINE: Murray’s framework converts photographic image-taking through threat of force into a legal category — proceeds of robbery — establishing the doctrinal basis for restitution.
• XREF: Connects to reader’s reading purpose on property law as the afterlife of slavery and to Coates’s plunder framing.