Ben Crump and Josh Koskoff Challenge Harvard Over Photo Profits

A federal judge has ruled that Harvard University must return two 1850 daguerreotypes of enslaved individuals to Tamara Lanier, a descendant who claims she is a direct lineage of the people photographed, marking a significant legal development in the ongoing debate over the ownership of historical images tied to slavery.

The images, believed to be among the earliest photographs of enslaved people in the United States, were commissioned in 1850 by Harvard professor Louis Agassiz to support his now-discredited theories of racial hierarchy. They depict Renty and his daughter Delia, who were enslaved on a plantation in Columbia, South Carolina, and were photographed without their consent.

Lanier, who resides in Connecticut, filed a lawsuit in 2019 asserting her familial connection to Renty and Delia and arguing that Harvard’s continued possession and use of the images constitute the unlawful retention of property stolen from her ancestors. She has sought not only the return of the daguerreotypes but also damages for the emotional harm caused by their exploitation.

In its defense, Harvard maintained that the images are part of its Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology’s historical collection and that Lanier failed to prove her genealogical claims with sufficient evidence. The university also argued that returning the images could set a problematic precedent for cultural institutions holding historical artifacts.

However, Judge Camille L. B. Sarrouf of the Massachusetts Superior Court ruled in favor of Lanier on the core claim of unlawful possession, stating that the photographs were taken under duress and without consent, and therefore cannot be considered lawfully acquired property. The judge emphasized that the images were produced in the context of slavery, a system defined by violence and coercion, which invalidates any notion of voluntary participation or legitimate transfer of ownership.

The ruling does not automatically transfer ownership but requires Harvard to engage in a legal process to return the images. The court did not award damages, citing insufficient proof of emotional distress under current legal standards, but left open the possibility for Lanier to pursue other claims in a separate proceeding.

Harvard has not yet announced whether it will appeal the decision. The university previously declined to return the images in 2021, citing internal reviews that concluded the daguerreotypes should remain in its care for educational purposes. Critics of that stance have argued that such positions prioritize institutional inertia over ethical reckoning with the legacy of slavery.

The case has drawn attention from historians, legal scholars, and reparations advocates who view it as a test case for how institutions should address artifacts tied to systemic injustice. Supporters of Lanier argue that the images are not mere historical objects but are deeply personal relics tied to a lineage that was violently disrupted by slavery.

Legal representatives for Lanier, including attorneys Ben Crump and Josh Koskoff, have framed the victory as a step toward restorative justice. Crump, a prominent civil rights lawyer, has previously been involved in high-profile cases involving racial injustice and police violence. Koskoff, known for his work in complex litigation, has emphasized that the ruling affirms the principle that property obtained through exploitation cannot be retained indefinitely by institutions.

The Peabody Museum, which holds the daguerreotypes, has not issued a public statement following the ruling. The museum’s online catalog still lists the images as part of its collection, though it remains unclear whether that designation will be updated in light of the court’s decision.

This decision adds to a growing number of legal and institutional efforts to reassess the stewardship of cultural objects acquired during periods of colonization and slavery. Similar cases have emerged in recent years involving artifacts held by European museums that were taken from African communities during colonial campaigns, though the Lanier case is notable for its focus on images rather than physical objects and its direct descendant claim.

For Tamara Lanier, the ruling represents a deeply personal milestone. She has spoken publicly about her efforts to trace her family history through oral records and limited documentation, a process made difficult by the erasure of enslaved people’s identities in historical archives. The photographs, she has said, are among the few tangible links she has to ancestors whose names and stories were otherwise suppressed.

While the legal battle may continue, the ruling underscores a shifting legal and ethical landscape in which institutions are increasingly challenged to justify the retention of items tied to human exploitation. Whether Harvard complies voluntarily or through further legal compulsion, the case is likely to influence how universities, museums, and archives approach similar holdings in the future.