Lake Agassiz
(Lake named for Louis)
Posted on 03/20/2019 9:29:07 AM PDT by Olog-hai
Harvard University has “shamelessly” turned a profit from photos of two 19th-century slaves while ignoring requests to turn the photos over to the slaves’ descendants, according to a lawsuit filed Wednesday.
Tamara Lanier, of Norwich, Connecticut, is suing the Ivy League school for “wrongful seizure, possession and expropriation” of images she says depict two of her ancestors. Her suit, filed in Massachusetts state court, demands that Harvard immediately turn over the photos, acknowledge her ancestry and pay an unspecified sum in damages.
Harvard spokesman Jonathan Swain said the university “has not yet been served, and with that is in no position to comment on this complaint.”
At the center of the case is a series of 1850 daguerreotypes, an early type of photo, taken of two South Carolina slaves identified as Renty and his daughter, Delia. Both were posed shirtless and photographed from several angles. The images are believed to be the earliest known photos of American slaves. …
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
She’d better have good proof that these two slaves are her ancestors. The obvious defense is to challenge her standing to bring suit.
Pictures belong to the photographer and not to the subject.
Harvard needs to tell these idiots to go pound sand.
Does she own the current copyright to these 1850 photographs? No? Then she should shut up.
Silently Harambe weeps.
But, everything is coll now that all those statues and battle flags have been destroyed. It’s like slavery never happened....
Ah, a new variation on erasing a past they don’t like.
Years ago my mom encountered something similar at auctions where books that had once been published by black Persons and black run organizations for black children (specifically The Brownies’ Book) were being bought not to collect but for the stated purpose by the black purchaser to destroy them.
I am of the opinion that intellectual printed property expires after 7 years, and then has to be renewed, and at some point in time it becomes PUBLIC domain. Like the King James Bible.
Copyright is (though it has changed over the years) valid for the life of the author plus so many years...
I do not know how this works when applied to entities, like corporations or a University.
Louis Agassiz earned his reputation for his studies of geology, not slavery.
Not correct. He had to have permission to photograph a person. She may well win this one because Harvard continues to use it
Benjamin Crump
Surprise, surprise, surprise!
In 1850? What was the law then? This “case” should be tossed immediately. They have to be public domain by now, anyway.
The term of copyright for a particular work depends on several factors, including whether it has been published, and, if so, the date of first publication. As a general rule, for works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. For an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first. For works first published prior to 1978, the term will vary depending on several factors. To determine the length of copyright protection for a particular work, consult chapter 3 of the Copyright Act (title 17 of the United States Code). More information on the term of copyright can be found in Circular 15a, Duration of Copyright, and Circular 1, Copyright Basics.https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-duration.html.
Bookburners have always been part of the human race - now they make their home among so called ‘liberals’...
The bottom line for me is that no matter what the law on the matter is, we all endure constant assaholic lectures from Harvard, Yale and other Ivy schools about how evil we are for being white. The talk about reparations comes from there. The talk about affirmative action comes from there.
They constantly beat us with the racism and white privilege and intersection whips.
And who are they? Harvard openly discriminates against orientals, and profits of slave photos. Yale Skull and Bones has a collection of American Indian skulls for their pagan rituals.
Can you imagine if you or I kept an Indian skull to dance naked around? The FBI would kick in your door at 5am with a warrant to search for violations of the NAGRPA act. Imagine if your business openly said “we want to hire fewer orientals”.
So I hope Harvard gets humiliated, embarrassed, and it costs them a lot of money.
The issue here, it seems to me, is not one of copyright or ownership of the daguerreotype, but of permission to use a person's likeness for commercial purposes without his permission.
The person whose likeness is at the center of the question is dead. Do that person's heirs or descendants have standing to sue on his behalf?
IDK. IANAL.
I don’t know whether she has any legal claim to the photo.
But I do sympathize with her: I wouldn’t be happy if Harvard were profiting from a photo of one of my ancestors, either.
Lake Agassiz
(Lake named for Louis)
The need for multiple periods is because of Mickey Mouse and Disney. That copyright should have expired long ago but money not only talks but moves legal goal lines.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.