Very troubling...if your photo causes someone distress you can be sued now.

Court: Harvard can be sued for distress over slave photos (aol.com)

BOSTON (AP) — A Connecticut woman who says she's descended from slaves who are portrayed in widely published, historical photos owned by Harvard University can sue the school for emotional distress, Massachusetts’ highest court ruled Thursday.

The state’s Supreme Judicial Court partly vacated a lower court ruling that dismissed a complaint from Tamara Lanier over photos she says depict her enslaved ancestors. The images are considered some of the earliest that show enslaved people in the U.S.

The court concluded the Norwich resident and her family can plausibly make a case for suffering “negligent and indeed reckless infliction of emotional distress” from Harvard and remanded that part of their claim to the state Superior Court.

The judges said the university failed to contact Lanier when it used one of the images on a book cover and prominently featured it in materials for a campus conference — even after she'd reached out about her ancestral ties.

“In sum, despite its duty of care to her, Harvard cavalierly dismissed her ancestral claims and disregarded her requests, despite its own representations that it would keep her informed of further developments,” the ruling states.

I caught a glimpse of Sanford looking in the store window.

Who do I sue for my distress? The store whose window it was? Sanford?

We're in deep, troubled waters here.

A couple of IHMO 'flippant' responses so far but - at least in the US - this ruling has its merits but might open the doors to other 'distress through photos' claims. Street photos?

TBH, although I've lived in NL for many years, I was born and brought up in the UK and I still visit there regularly. In both countries, the US is colloquially known as 'the country of litigation'. In the sense that residents routinely hire lawers to find possible claims. And that their lawyers routinely find ways of claiming benefits for their clients.

Don't get me wrong, I'm completely OK with anyone challenging photos that are published without permission. I think I might have had a similar reaction to the woman in Connecticut if a photo of my grandmother appeared on a book without my (or my sister's) permission.

I take mainly 'informal portraits' and I always get signed permission to publish these. At 'events' I'm either an 'official' or 'unofficial'' photographer' At events for I'm an 'official photographer' the organization covers my 'publication rights, At events at which I'm (just) an informal photograph, I try to make some agreement with yje organization. Otherwise, I just try my luck and hope for the best!

Who do I sue for my distress? The store whose window it was? Sanford

The glazier of course.

The store whose window it was? Sanford?

All stores!

I suspect we will learn more here. Why did Harvard lie to her? I’d want an answer to that question before reaching a conclusion and before generalizing this to other cases where distress might be claimed.

The Internet is good for summarizing things and then gossiping about them. Thankfully, it’s neither an educational institution nor a court of law.

...I might have had a similar reaction to the woman in Connecticut if a photo of my grandmother appeared on a book without my (or my sister's) permission.

why?

no need to answer in the forum--i just thought you might want to clarify the answer for yourself ;) personally, i couldn't care less if someone thought my long gone ancestors worthy of a bucket of ink... and they were good people, too :)

why?

 

no need to answer in the forum--i just thought you might want to clarify the answer for yourself ;) personally, i couldn't care less if someone thought my long gone ancestors worthy of a bucket of ink... and they were good people, too :)

I don’t know what her reasons were but it could be that a personal history of family slavery could bring up untold feelings and emotions that might be hard for me, at least, to understand.

I don’t know what her reasons were but it could be that a personal history of family slavery could bring up untold feelings and emotions that might be hard for me, at least, to understand.

ya, figured out dat much... was askin mike ;)

ya, figured out dat much... was askin mike ;)

We have options. If we want to ask a question exclusively to one person, there’s a private conversations feature. Asking one in public makes it … well … public. In any case, I imagine Mike has his reasons. I’m with you. Wouldn’t mind seeing my own ancestors pics in the history books. Many of them were printers so, funnily enough, they could have produced family history books themselves, though none that I know of went to Harvard! :)

I wonder how this lady has determined she is related to the people in the photo and can she prove it? I also question the idea that I have any say in photo of a relative being published. If I own the rights to that photo then yes but otherwise I suspect it’s not up to me. As I grow older and less tolerant of nonsense I suspect she is just looking for a payday.

Rick H.

I think this article may be a little more clear and to the point. In any case, it's reasonable to see why she has a case, though I agree ownership itself is not hers. The title of this thread is misleading. This is not simply a case of a woman being distressed over a photo. It's also a case involving Harvard's original sin in commissioning the photos in the first place and their current mistreatment of Ms. Lanier.

REUTERS

Important facts of the case:

The woman suing is "... a descendant of slaves who were forced to be photographed in 1850 for a study by a professor [at Harvard] trying to prove the inferiority of Black people.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled Harvard's "horrific, historic role" in creating the images meant it had a duty to respond carefully to Tamara Lanier's requests for information about them, which she said the university failed to do.

... the court said the Ivy League school does not need to hand over the photos to Lanier, concluding that despite the "egregious" circumstances the Connecticut woman had no rightful property interest in them.

The smell of money on both sides.

Slavery in all parts of the world used to be a fact of life way back then , remember that you cannot choose your ancestors.

I should have read the article in the initial link. Thanks to @samstevens for providing the facts (and another article). It seems that these photographs were taken against the will of her ancestors and used to support racial difference theories that in turn supported slavery. I can well imagine the kind of distress that this woman feels at these photos being insensitively 'exploited' by Harvard, given their purpose and the circumstances in which they were taken. It's disappointing that Harvard seemingly just claimed 'ownership' and was not prepared to discuss the matter with the woman.

No photos of my ancestors can in any way compare to this case. And as far as I'm aware, the few photos that do exist are all in family members' shoeboxes ;). But replying to @vilk_inc, I do have a feeling of 'extended family' that includes my direct ancestors. I can't imagine any situation where I would object - if asked - phot's to be published. But I would like (one of the family members) to be informed and consulted first.

The smell

Yeah. I smell something, too. In your reaction.

It seems to me Harvard is behaving badly and very stupidly. This lawsuit has arisen because the people were previously promised they would be informed, and the university broke that promise. It seems to me that they are essentially enforcing a contract. 'Distress' is just a convenient hook on which to hang the process; what I'd be looking for is a change in behaviour, and to draw public attention to what has happened, not money. But I'm white and British; my great-greats wouldn't have been treated like that.

In today's world, I'm amazed the university thought it right or sensible in the first place to assert property rights over photographs created by their academics under such circumstances. Maybe it would be different if Harvard had not been involved in making the pictures, but had acquired them sometime later; or if the photographs were of something that was happening anyway, not made as part of an explicitly racist endeavour.

If my great-grandad (say) had photographed someone else's great-grandma in similar circumstances, I don't think I'd be asserting my property rights over the pictures. Isn't it like someone with looted art standing up in court and saying 'My grandad pillaged this in good faith, so it's mine'?

My skill with maths is not always the best, but the best reckoning places these photos at 172 years old.

1850 was not a good time to be Black in America. Or Chinese. Or Native American. Sadly, deep systemic problems still plague these groups.

But what about these photos? Harvard says they own them. Everyone involved with their creation is long dead. Yes, there are uncomfortable truth's behind them. But enough of the scrubbing of history because it upsets some people. Except on TV and in the movies, there are no time machines that allow us to make the circumstances of the photos different. Yes, they speak to different things--some deeply misguided.

If for no other reason, they should be seen to highlight our thinking of the time--now and then. Yes, Harvard lied at the least. What else is new in contemporary society? Hurt feelings. Now, these images are splattered with a different kind of bullshit.

@Sanford do you recall that awful day you looked in the mirror and wondered "what the eff happened?" It's OK, because I understand that time has marched on...

It seems to me Harvard is behaving badly and very stupidly. This lawsuit has arisen because the people were previously promised they would be informed, and the university broke that promise. It seems to me that they are essentially enforcing a contract. 'Distress' is just a convenient hook on which to hang the process; what I'd be looking for is a change in behaviour, and to draw public attention to what has happened, not money. But I'm white and British; my great-greats wouldn't have been treated like that.

In today's world, I'm amazed the university thought it right or sensible in the first place to assert property rights over photographs created by their academics under such circumstances. Maybe it would be different if Harvard had not been involved in making the pictures, but had acquired them sometime later; or if the photographs were of something that was happening anyway, not made as part of an explicitly racist endeavour.

If my great-grandad (say) had photographed someone else's great-grandma in similar circumstances, I don't think I'd be asserting my property rights over the pictures. Isn't it like someone with looted art standing up in court and saying 'My grandad pillaged this in good faith, so it's mine'?

In America, we have very strong constitutional protection of free speech which photos are considered. Unless you obtained them by trespass or violated copyright laws, I don't see how someone could win in a lawsuit that they cause the person distress. A few years ago, books that expressed pornography were outlawed only to be allowed subsequently by our Supreme Court again under the idea that free speech is protected constitutionally.

Frankly, if pictures cause distress, don't look at them.