How about some answers for this? Where are you Peter Nash?

[David Atkatz]

Nonsense. If the Library claims them, it would be incumbent upon the present owner to produce a chain of ownership proving that they were legally removed from the Library.
The Library, for whatever its reasons are, however, declines to claim them.

[ss]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Nonsense. If the Library claims them, it would be incumbent upon the present owner to produce a chain of ownership proving that they were legally removed from the Library.
The Library, for whatever its reasons are, however, declines to claim them.

Untrue. The library would have to present reasonable evidence of ownership and theft. If they cannot make this case to a reasonable standard, the current possessor/owner is required by law to present nothing at all.

[David Atkatz]

Proof of prior possession by the library, along with no evidence of legal possession--i.e., legal removal from the library--is evidence of theft.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Proof of prior possession by the library, along with no evidence of legal possession--i.e., legal removal from the library--is evidence of theft.

Is an invoice from an auction house proof of possession?

[David Atkatz]

Of course not. Proof of legal possession. Proof that the material was legally obtained from the library before being sold on.

[D. Bergin]

Everybody who's ever bought anything with a library stamp on it, has a lot of explaining to do, I guess.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Everybody who's ever bought anything with a library stamp on it, has a lot of explaining to do, I guess.

That's right. There are numerous cases of rare document thieves being caught with caches of stolen documents from many different libraries. Most of the time, the libraries in question hadn't even realized said documents had gone walkabout. Guess what? The documents went back to the libraries, and the thieves went to jail. Library stamp was enough.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Of course not. Proof of legal possession. Proof that the material was legally obtained from the library before being sold on.

The problem with most of these items is that they've been through multiple hands and I'm not sure how the museums go about tracking the thief down. That said, I believe that if you are in possession of an item that belongs to the library or museum it is your moral obligation to return it and then seek restitution from where you got it.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Nonsense. If the Library claims them, it would be incumbent upon the present owner to produce a chain of ownership proving that they were legally removed from the Library.
The Library, for whatever its reasons are, however, declines to claim them.

David, your writings make me think you are sympathetic to Nash's issues. Forget what he is targeting and going after for a minute. What are your thoughts on him?