Plausibility of US Suit over Ownership of Photos of Slaves Background As reported in this Washington Post news article and many similar articles in other major news organs, a lawsuit has very recently been filed against Harvard University and various associated institutions, including Harvard's Peabody Muse am. The complaint is here This suit seeks possession of several early photographs ( daguerreotypes) of slaves taken in 1850. Other news stories: Diverse Education WGN TV USA Today These photos were taken in an effort to help support the then controversial but respectable "polygenist" theory that different human "races" had separate origins. This theory is now discredited, and had been used to support racist views and actions. These daguerreotypes are believed to be the earliest extant images of slaves in the US, according to the story. They were taken at the instance of, and published by, then Harvard Professor Louis Agassiz, and remained in storage at the university. Paragraphs 203 through 213 of count 1 of the complaint assert that the photographs were "unlawfully taken" because the subjects never consented to being photographed, and were not compensated. Those paragraphs further assert that Agassiz never had good title to the photos, and that thus neither did Harvard.They further assert that the plaintiff is the next of kin of the man shown in one of the photos, and as such is entitled to possession of and title to the original photos. Count 3 asserts that under MA general laws Chapter 214, section 3A, use of these photos without the consent of the next of kin for "advertising and commercial purposes" is unlawful and actionable. Count 4 asserts that Harvard's possession and use of these photos is unlawful under the 13th amendment to the US Constitution, which prohibits slavery, and was drafted and ratified after the end of the US Civil war, more than 15 years after the photos were taken. For the purposes of this question I assume that the photos were indeed taken without consent, and that the plaintiff in the suit has correctly identified the subject of the photo, and is indeed the direct descendant of one subject and the surviving next of kin of another, although I gather that these statements are disputed. This suit has just been field as I write, and has not yet been passed on in any way by any court, to my knowledge. Questions is it plausibly the case that ownership of an original photograph would be awarded to the subject (or the subject's heirs) because the subject did not consent to the making of the photograph? Do Massachusetts laws indeed protect personality and publicity rights in photos more than 160 years old, if they were originally taken without consent of the subject, and are now used without consent from the subject's next of kin? Does the US 13th amendment give any private right of action to claim property obtained via ownership of slavery, or that may constitute a "badge of slavery"?
is it plausibly the case that ownership of an original photograph would be awarded to the subject (or the subject's heirs) because the subject did not consent to the making of the photograph? No The photograph belongs to the person who owned the photographic plate. Copyright in the image belonged (it has long ago entered the public domain) to the photographer. Subjects (then and now) have no claim on either. Do Massachusetts laws indeed protect personality and publicity rights in photos more than 160 years old, if they were originally taken without consent of the subject, and are now used without consent from the subject's next of kin? No The people in the photograph may bring a suit. These people are long since dead and their estates have long ago been wound up. There is no longer anyone with standing to bring such a suit. Does the US 13th amendment give any private right of action to claim property obtained via ownership of slavery, or that may constitute a &quot;badge of slavery&quot;? No In its entirety, the 13 amendment reads: Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. It does not deal with the products of slavery at all.
In the United States, it does not matter how you save any evidence; the other side will essentially always be permitted to question its authenticity. Even if they don't question it, a judge or jury would still be free to do so. That said, the standard means of saving this kind of evidence would be to make a screengrab or print it to PDF, and to attach that to an affidavit in which you swear that the image is an authentic representation of the content of the web page as of whatever date and time. If you want something that is harder to question, you could also ask some independent third party to do so. There are, for instance, archiving services like archive.org and perma.cc that will copy a page and store it indefinitely, largely removing the question of whether you might have manipulated the page in any way.
There are several misunderstandings here. First of all, the US exclusionary rule applies only to evidence gained by the police, or by people acting as agents of the government, and not always to them. Secondly it applies only in criminal cases. The question does not say which state this would be in, and these are largely matters of state law, so it makes a difference. But I don't know of any state where taking a video without explicit consent, in a place where the person has a right to be, is a crime. In some states it would not even be a tort. If a video is taken without the subject's consent, that may be an invasion of privacy, and the subject might be able to sue (not "file charges). In such a case the video itself would absolutely be put in evidence, and if it recorded verbal permission to take the video, the case would be promptly dismissed, quite possibly with sanctions for a frivolous lawsuit. Even if the video were taken by a police officer, and was presented as evidence in a criminal case, the office could testify to the verbal permission. That would be enough for the judge to view the video as part of a suppression hearing (which is not before a jury). If the judge saw and heard verbal permission to take the video, that would be an end to the motion to suppress, unless it was claimed that the permission was somehow coerced or faked, and evidence supported such a claim.
We don't have a lot of details, but if you're in the United States, the answer is probably yes. There are rarely any meaningful rules of evidence in student misconduct cases, so pretty much anything can come in. There may be some small difference in the answer depending n whether you're dealing with a public university or private, but in either case, I can't think of any reason why they would not be able to introduce the evidence if they had it. If there's a question about its authenticity, I imagine that would just be up to the misconduct board to decide. If Person X says "Person Y sent this to me," and Person X seems credible, that's probably going to be enough.
That’s legal The New York Human Rights Law prohibits discrimination on the basis of “age, race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, military status, sex, marital status or disability”. Federal law prevents employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, or gender identity), national origin, age (40 or older), disability and genetic information (including family medical history). What law school you went to is on neither list. If Harvard’s policies break the rules, that’s not the firm’s issue. However, AFAIK, Harvard is scrupulously fair in their admissions program - so long as you have the grades and the money, they’ll let you in. It’s not Harvard’s fault that most of the people who get the best secondary education and have the most money are predominantly white, Christian, and US born - that’s do to politico-social-historical-economic factors beyond Harvard’s control.
Public schools are on a shorter legal leash than private schools are, because they must behave like proper governments do and respect the constitutional rights of their charges. (First Amendment rights are much broader in public schools than they are in private schools). Assuming that we're in a public school, a search of your phone is governed by a watered-down version of the 4th Amendment. They may search your phone if they have a reasonable suspicion that there is evidence of a violation of the law or a school rule, but this is passive with respect to you providing information -- if the phone is on, they can snoop around if they have a reasonable suspicion. The 5th Amendment would be relevant to passcodes: they cannot compel you to give up your passcode. If there was plainly-visible evidence of wrongful activity on the phone which they saw, and then you shut the phone down, then analogous to in re Boucher the courts could order you to reveal your password, under the "foregone conclusion" doctrine. However, it's the courts and not the schools who get to make that determination. One way the school could literally force you, bypassing the legal system, would be to physically threaten you, by beating you or threatening you with a gun or whip. Such physical coersion would be a felony, and it is almost inconceivable that they would do that. What they might maybe do is give you a non-physical ultimatum, of the type "decrypt the phone / reveal the password or we will... expel you / fine you / fail you in your English class / not let you go to any more football games / turn the phone over to the police". The question is, what would be legal versus illegal by way of consequences? I know of no constitutional right to attend football games anywhere, so they might well be able to get away with that deprivation. You might have a contractual right to attend games at a private school. With a private school, there is some contractual agreement between the school and you (least likely, assuming you're a minor) or your parents~guardians (most likely). That contract could imply certain rights, such as attending games, and might spell out a procedure for them to terminate that right. If they don't follow the process, they could be in breach of contract. Apart from contractual rights (which probably involve your parents, not you, but also would be considerable, for example the right to attend and be graded fairly in the English class), you have no protected rights. As you can see, the answer has a lot of "it depends" in it. Suppose your public school had a reasonable suspcion that you had engaged in a criminal activity, and might prove that by looking at the phone – which you shut down. They cannot use physical force against you, but they can try to persuade you, by offering you something that you want which they can legally take away – like attending a football game. If they try to deprive you of something that you have a right to, you can sue them to prevent that. However, they can also seek a court order to compel you to reveal the password, and it is certainly not illegal to inform you that if you don't unlock the phone, they will seek a court order. Whether or not the courts will grant the request is not obvious (incidentally, if the device is fingerprint-protected, you are hosed, since forcing a person to prove fingerprints is not against the 5th). If the school can be very specific about having seen criminal evidence, they have a leg to stand on, otherwise you cannot be compelled to testify against yourself (coughing up a password is a form of testifying against yourself).
Who knows. It doesn't matter. 17 USC 102 lists the kinds of things protectable by copyright under US law. These are: (1) literary works; (2) musical works, including any accompanying words; (3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music; (4) pantomimes and choreographic works; (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; (6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works; (7) sound recordings; and (8) architectural works. A landscape feature is none of these and is not subject to copyright protection under US law, nor I think under the law of any other country. The &quot;copyright notice&quot; has no legal effect. 17 USC 120 Specifically prohibits copyright being used to prevent the taking of pictures of a building from a public place. In many countries Freedom of panorama (FOP) specifically permits publication of photos taken from public places. Se also this article on FOP. FOP is an exception to copyright protection, which applies to copyrighted architectural works and publicly posted works of art, such as sculptures. Since landscape features are not copyrightable at all, FOP does not strictly apply to them, but all the arguments for FOP would apply to them even more strongly. In US Law, particularly under the Fiest vs Rural case, only works with original content, created by a person, are protected by copyright. (Other countries generally have similar limits on copyright.) But a feature of the landscape is not the original creation of any person. (If someone carved the landscape into a designed shape, it might be protect able as a sculpture.) 3 and 4. If it were a building, you could take pictures of it from a public place or a private place where you have a legal right to be, under 17 USC 120 . But since a part of the landscape is not protected by copyright at all, this is not really relevant. No under the US First amendment there is generally a right to say even false things. But if the landowner attempts to enforce this &quot;copyright&quot; it would be considered frivolous and any court proceeding would be promptly tossed out. The sign gives the landowner no rights s/he would not otherwise have.
Yes, one has a right to privacy in such a case This right is clearly established, and so an officer or other government official or employee who listened in or authorized another to listen in could be personally sued under 42 US Code § 1983 often kn own simply as &quot;section 1983). That law provides: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia. The current version of section 1983 dates to 1979, but its hiostory goes much further back. This law derives from the Enforcement Act of 1871 also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act, Third Enforcement Act, Third Ku Klux Klan Act, Civil Rights Act of 1871, or the Force Act of 1871. According to the Wikipedia article about it: The act was the last of three Enforcement Acts passed by the United States Congress from 1870 to 1871 during the Reconstruction Era to combat attacks upon the suffrage rights of African Americans. The statute has been subject to only minor changes since then, but has been the subject of voluminous interpretation by courts. According to the same article, Section 1983: is the most widely used civil rights enforcement statute, allowing people to sue in civil court over civil rights. According to the same article: A §1983 claim requires according to the United States Supreme Court in Adickes v. S. H. Kress &amp; Co. (1970) two elements for recovery: (1) the plaintiff must prove that the defendant has deprived him of a right secured by the, &quot;constitution and laws,&quot; of the US, and (2) the plaintiff must show that the defendant deprived him of this constitutional right 'under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory' (under color of law)