Tompa Has A Point

.
This could be a first folks. I do not - as readers might have guessed - generally agree with Peter Tompa, not out of principle so much as the fact that I think that what he writes is simply wrong. To be fair then I should place on record at least one occasion when I think he is right. In his post 'Questions About Provenance of WikiLoot Documents “Silly”?' he discusses Jason Felch's reply (actually non-reply) to a pertinent question which had occurred to me also. Tompa writes:

I asked Mr. Felch on his “Chasing Aphrodite” blog:

“[...] What is the source of these documents? Were they released legally or leaked unofficially? There would be some considerable irony if you are going to hunt looted material with “looted” documents. If the latter, shouldn't the NSPA apply?”

While I am not as au fait as Mr Tompa presumably is, I am not sure that the National Stolen Property Act is applicable to "illicitly obtained Italian and Greek government documents" as Tompa put it. I am assuming Felch has not obtained the documents illicitly (I do wonder whether, under the circumstances under which he obtained it, he really does have the entire relevant material resulting from the ongoing investigations - and how he could check that this was so). Their use is however an entirely different matter. Tompa's question about the ownership of certain rights to those images is not a "silly" one, and deserves an answer.

But just for accuracy, let us compare what Jason Felch actually responded with Tompa's rendering of that... spot the difference, and then guess why Tompa redacted it - just for brevity, or was a point about coin collectors made that might be uncomfortable in the context of Mr Tompa's job as dealers' lobbyist? Decide for yourselves.

Peter, thanks for your comment. Ancient coin collectors should have a keen interest in seeing this project succeed, and we would appreciate their support and expertise. I’ve addressed Elizabeth’s question. Re: journalism, I’ll tell you what: I’ll keep my advice about lobbying to myself if you do the same about journalism, whose most basic function is bringing hidden information to light. Your crack about nspa and “looted” documents is silly. I know you’re used to fighting for your cause in the trenches, but hope you have more constructive thoughts to contribute about WikiLoot soon. We’re open to them.

But what, precisely is the source of the documents which will be the originating core of Wikiloot?

UPDATE 16.3.12:
Ton Cremers writes on MSN:

Jason Felch is right: that question is VERY silly, and not relevant.
The source of the documents - I advise Peter Barford finally reads The Medici Conspiracy - is of very little importance compared to the information they contain.

I am not sure why Ton thinks I have not read the Medici Conspiracy, haven't we all? Nobody is calling into question in any way the value (but also limitations) of the information these photos and other documents contain. What is being questioned is the rights the journalist(s) obtained with those documents. I fear Mr Cremers has not understood what is being questioned.


Photo: In the Barford household, even the cats have read 'The Medici Cospiracy' (fellow cat owners, no need to write; she 16 and IS seriously ill and under treatment which is why she is not looking her best today).