The New York Times Magazine relaunch this weekend has won no shortage of plaudits, and deservedly so. What was a great little magazine is now a great big magazine, giving both readers and advertisers reason to rejoice. To wit: it takes 100 pages to get to the first facing pages of content, after which begins an impressive and ad-rare features section.

After an update on the Hong Kong democracy protests and a glimpse of Gary Shteyngart’s descent in to madness, though, is a piece that has me less prone to superlative praise. ‘Why Not Us Women’ does not lack in content—it is a beautiful collection of images of life and combat in the Congolese Army—but its framing leaves me unsatisfied. Extremely so.

On the web, the story is listed as “Compiled by Michael Christopher Brown”: in print it says “Photographs collected by Michael Christopher Brown” and “Text by Eliza Griswold” on the opening page. Both print and web subheds suggest that someone else took the photos—in the print version, Sgt. Dagbinza is not initially named. As we learn on page three of the feature (130), Michael Christopher Brown purchased the entire album—the one spread across the next five full pages of one of the world’s most prestigious magazines—for $100 and a set of copies. Each of those pages lists only one credit: that of the purchaser.

The album presumably has many photographers. Madot Dagbinza is likely one of them, many more likely contributed. Perhaps there is a single photographer other than Dagbinza responsible for many of them. The text does not tell us about the creators, though it does tell us about Brown’s time in the region. We are sure, however, Michael Christopher Brown is certainly not one of the photographers.

Brown owns the commercial rights to these photos: this is not currently in dispute. Neither is the likely massive difference in what he paid for them versus what the Times Mag has paid to him.

Here, I wonder:

Why has the creator of the photographs completely vanished?

Why, instead, have the editors only listed their owner?

Presumably Brown would know something about this photo album that entranced him—perhaps he knows who took them. Perhaps not, and an Unknown artist should be listed.

To a cynic, the reproduction of a deceased black woman’s craft to a white man’s credit is about as symbolic of centuries of oppression as you can get. It is an intentional appropriation of material from the Dark Continent yet again, taking the wealth and giving no credit. This is no “found” art.

To an optimist, it is a momentary lapse in editorial judgment. The true authorship was supposed to come out from the text and pulse from each image. Or it is simply a perhaps unlucky adherence to procedure: the photos were sold after all.

I prefer to live without these questions lingering over these powerful and unique images.

Let’s see if we can get an explanation, and perhaps, even, some greater honor to this amazing woman.