Harvard invoked an anti-exploitation policy while selectively licensing the same images.

Evidence

The museum’s curators say they denied the Swiss group permission to reproduce the images because of the Peabody’s blanket policy against the display of exploitative images of naked people. … There were dozens of examples where Harvard allowed the images to be reproduced—including Molly Rogers’s book, which had Delia on its cover. Granted, her image was cropped from her shoulders up, but it was still obvious that she was naked. And you could see—and feel—her humiliation in her eyes. How was that okay? But my and Hans Fässler’s requests were not? It was becoming abundantly clear to me that the university wanted to control how the image was used—and Fässler had the emails to prove it. — Tamara Lanier, From These Roots, 304

Categorization

• ADDENDUM: Directly bears on the dissertation-in-progress about how institutions hold stolen things: Harvard’s selective licensing reveals the control at stake in owning the image of an enslaved person.
• XREF: Connects to the reparations litigation argument — prior licensing of the images to Rogers undercuts the claimed policy basis for denial.