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

[drcy]

One thing is the legal owner has to object for there to be a legal objection. Practically speaking. If your hometown library doesn't care anymore that you didn't return a worn Danielle Steele paperback forty years ago, then the library doesn't care.

Now, on the other hand, if it was a Picasso oil painting instead of a worn Danielle Steele paperback, they likely will care.

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by drcy

One thing is the legal owner has to object for there to be a legal objection. Practically speaking. If your hometown library doesn't care anymore that you didn't return a worn Danielle Steele paperback forty years ago, then the library doesn't care.

Now, on the other hand, if it was a Picasso oil painting instead of a worn Danielle Steele paperback, they likely will care.

This seems to be the crux of the issue at hand. The items being dicussed on Nash's website are closer to the Picasso than the Steele novel (certainly in the eyes of the members of this board), yet for some reason the museums in question do not seem all that interested in creating legal objections in all cases.

[drcy]

I agree the Danielle Steele paperback was an extreme example. I didn't even say hardback.

That's why I went back added the Picasso example.

But my point was if the legal owner doesn't object, then the legal owner doesn't object. Nothing an uninvolved third party can do about that. You or I can't sue on the NYPL's behalf.

[slidekellyslide]

I bought a framed print at a garage sale that had our local library's markings on the back along with a pouch and a card that was last stamped in 1961...believe it or not you could at one time check out artwork from the library. I was curious about this item and if it still belonged to the library so I called them and they said they haven't checked out artwork for years. There was absolutely nothing stamped on this item showing it was deaccessioned.

[David Atkatz]

So? The last guy to take it out never returned it.

[slidekellyslide]

You could be right...I don't think it's even a point worth arguing. Clearly there are items missing from both the HOF and the NYPL that were stolen. I don't believe any of those baseball papers or photos were ever deaccessioned. I do however believe both of those institutions are not following up on it because they don't value it enough to go after it. They get stuff for free, they aren't going to pay lawyers to get it back. If the FBI gets it back for them they'll probably take it, but I doubt they spend 1/100th the time that we do thinking about the lost items.

[David Atkatz]

You're absolutely right, there, Dan!

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

I bought a framed print at a garage sale that had our local library's markings on the back along with a pouch and a card that was last stamped in 1961...believe it or not you could at one time check out artwork from the library. I was curious about this item and if it still belonged to the library so I called them and they said they haven't checked out artwork for years. There was absolutely nothing stamped on this item showing it was deaccessioned.

Dan, that's particularly true when the item is valuable - I know of a specific example where the item has library stamps, but nothing to indicate that it was ever deaccessioned. The library sold the items to a collector after acquiring a duplicate in better condition, the buyer then re-sold them. The original legal sale by the library definitely occurred. Out of curiosity, I traced it's history and verified all owners, including the library.

[travrosty]

I am of the opinion that the hof and nypl value 20k to 50k autographs enough to want them back. i also believe they dont want the publicity that goes along with admitting that these items slipped through their fingers, especially since new donors would want to be assured that their donated items actually stay in the museum or library.

So that is the reason why they dont go after them in my opinion. There is a price to pay in the form of bad publicity that they dont want to pay. Otherwise it wouldn't cost them anything to just admit they aren't interested in getting the items back, but they don't admit that. You can't get a statement out of them and that is per their damage control plan of defense.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by travrosty

I am of the opinion that the hof and nypl value 20k to 50k autographs enough to want them back. i also believe they dont want the publicity that goes along with admitting that these items slipped through their fingers, especially since new donors would want to be assured that their donated items actually stay in the museum or library.

So that is the reason why they dont go after them in my opinion. There is a price to pay in the form of bad publicity that they dont want to pay. Otherwise it wouldn't cost them anything to just admit they aren't interested in getting the items back, but they don't admit that. You can't get a statement out of them and that is per their damage control plan of defense.

Bad publicity is probably a part of it, but these thefts happened a long time ago and it would be easy for them to say the procedures for looking at this stuff have changed and what happened then can never happen again. It wouldn't be too hard to reassure a potential donor that his items are safer than Burdick's were 20+ years ago...or that the Spalding collection is untouchable, "here are the scans you asked for."

I truly believe it's much more of a money, lawyer, hassle issue for items they do not value the same way we do. They don't have to pay a dime for the FBI to do their job and if they get them back, they'll take them, but they obviously aren't going to use any of their own resources to do it.

[baseballart]

Originally Posted by travrosty

I am of the opinion that the hof and nypl value 20k to 50k autographs enough to want them back. i also believe they dont want the publicity that goes along with admitting that these items slipped through their fingers, especially since new donors would want to be assured that their donated items actually stay in the museum or library.

So that is the reason why they dont go after them in my opinion. There is a price to pay in the form of bad publicity that they dont want to pay. Otherwise it wouldn't cost them anything to just admit they aren't interested in getting the items back, but they don't admit that. You can't get a statement out of them and that is per their damage control plan of defense.

Travis

I can only comment on my own experience with the NYPL. When I saw an item years back on ebay with a "NYPL" stamp, I was concerned that it was unlawfully removed from the NYPL. I contacted counsel at the NYPL. He replied to me and indicated that the NYPL had reviewed its records and that the item had been indeed deaccessioned by the library, but somehow the proper stampings had not been entered in the book. As such, that particular item was not stolen from the NYPL.

He also added that if I came across other items where provenance was questioned, I could contact them again. I did not get the impression that things were "swept under the rug". It was quite the contrary and that he was indeed interested in being advised of items that had been taken unlawfully from the library.

Max

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Dan, that's particularly true when the item is valuable - I know of a specific example where the item has library stamps, but nothing to indicate that it was ever deaccessioned. The library sold the items to a collector after acquiring a duplicate in better condition, the buyer then re-sold them. The original legal sale by the library definitely occurred. Out of curiosity, I traced it's history and verified all owners, including the library.

And what Podunk library did that? Wasn't the NYPL, by any chance, was it? No, I thought not.