By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Harvard University has relinquished ownership of 175-year-old daguerreotypes of enslaved individuals, Renty and Delia, to the International African American Museum in South Carolina. This settlement concludes a 15-year legal battle initiated by Tamara Lanier, a descendant, who argued for the repatriation of the images. The agreement marks a significant victory for descendants of enslaved people, representing an unprecedented legal precedent regarding the ownership and control of such historical artifacts. While the financial terms remain undisclosed, the photos will now be contextualized within a museum dedicated to African American history, allowing for a more complete and nuanced narrative of their ancestors’ lives.
Read the original article here
Harvard’s recent agreement to relinquish early photographs of enslaved individuals, Renty and Delia, among others, concludes a protracted legal battle initiated in 2019. The lawsuit alleged “wrongful seizure, possession, and expropriation” of these images, highlighting Harvard’s “exploitation” of Renty’s image at a 2017 conference and beyond. The university’s practice of demanding substantial licensing fees for reproducing these images further fueled the controversy, adding a layer of commercialization to a deeply sensitive historical issue.
The timing of this settlement announcement has sparked considerable online debate. Some commentators noted the seemingly coincidental release of this news amidst other negative press surrounding Harvard, leading to speculation about a strategic attempt to deflect criticism. This interpretation suggests a calculated move by the university to address a long-standing issue, potentially to mitigate further damage to their public image.
However, the legal aspects of the case also merit attention. Many observers questioned the legitimacy of Harvard’s claims to these images, given that copyright protections had long expired. The argument that these images were now in the public domain raised questions about why Harvard, or any entity possessing copies, should retain exclusive control. This perspective emphasizes the fundamental principle of public access to historical materials, particularly those documenting significant injustices like slavery.
Others focused on the distinction between the copyright status of the images and the ownership of the physical photographs themselves. The argument here centered on the idea that while copyright may have expired, Harvard’s ownership of the physical daguerreotypes provided a legal basis for their actions. Charging a fee for access to these originals could be seen as justifiable, reflecting the costs of preservation and the value of the institution’s collection. This point highlights the complexities of balancing intellectual property rights with access to culturally significant materials.
The ethical dimensions of the case extend beyond legal arguments. The original commissioning of the daguerreotypes, by Harvard biologist Louis Agassiz, to support racist theories about the inferiority of Black people, casts a long shadow. This historical context fundamentally changes the nature of the debate. The very existence of these images as artifacts of a profoundly unjust system makes the question of ownership particularly fraught. This perspective emphasizes the moral responsibility of institutions to acknowledge and reconcile with their problematic pasts.
The controversy also highlights wider issues surrounding the management and accessibility of historical archives within educational and research institutions. The practice of charging licensing fees for public domain materials is widely criticized as undermining the free flow of information and access to historical resources. This raises questions about institutional policies concerning the use and dissemination of historical materials and the need for greater transparency and accountability.
A further layer of complexity is added by the discussion about the political context surrounding the case. Some commentators linked the timing of the settlement to ongoing political disputes, suggesting that the publicity surrounding the lawsuit could be part of a wider campaign to discredit Harvard. This interpretation highlights the risk of using historical events as tools in current political battles. Conversely, the opinion also arose that the timing should not be considered in the ethics of the situation and ignoring the underlying issue only because of political reasons is problematic.
Ultimately, the resolution of this long-standing legal dispute over the photographs of Renty, Delia, and others signals a shift, however small, in the approach to reconciling with a painful past. The agreement to relinquish the images represents a step toward greater transparency and accountability, promoting broader access to historical materials documenting slavery and its enduring legacy. However, the underlying questions about institutional ethics and the accessibility of historical archives persist, demonstrating the need for ongoing reflection and reform within institutions.