Illegal to Sell Postage Stamps Over 100 Years Old??

[Mark]

This is a new one for us. Google Checkout has informed one of our sellers that he will be suspended from Google Checkout unless he stops accepts Google Checkout on stamps which are over 100 years old, as they are prohibited by the UNESCO 1970 act:

Article 1

For the purposes of this Convention, the term `cultural property' means property which, on religious or secular grounds, is specifically designated by each State as being of importance for archaeology, prehistory, history, literature, art or science and which belongs to the following categories:

(i) postage, revenue and similar stamps, singly or in collections;

This certainly has far reaching implementations for all of our sellers and is a very serious matter. Any thoughts/suggestions?

-Mark

[khj]

UN authority is very limited, and largely dependent upon whether member nations agree to accept the articles. Even if they do accept any articles, it is not uncommon for member nations to ignore or purposefully snub their nose at enforcement or complying.

I think it's actually mentioned specifically in article one. A whole bunch of nations made declarations of provisions which either outright rejected certain articles, or declared they would not enforce the articles.

Since when did Google decide they were going to be the Planetary Police Force?

There are some nations that actively enforce the prohibition import/export of stamps more than 100 years old. Don't hold me to this, but I believe Italy is one of those nations.

Anyway, all the info is available at the UNESCO website if anyone wants to do a study of utopian lunacy. I'll dig up the link and post some of the pertinent parts/provisos.

Sellers/buyers should be aware a few (very few) nations actually enforce the rule. But they are not going to haul you off to face the firing squad. Your stamps will be confiscated, however.

k

[khj]

OK, I see that while I was typing, the opening post was edited to include the Article.

[khj]

Here is the link to the relevant UNESCO site regarding the 1970 Convention.

http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13039&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

Here is the US declaration of reservations (our opt-out clause).

United States of America [at the time of ratification]
“United States reserves the right to determine whether or not to impose export controls over cultural property”.
The United States understands the provisions of the Convention to be neither self-executing nor retroactive.
The United States understands Article 3 not to modify property interests in cultural property under the laws of the States parties.
The United States understands Article 7 (a) to apply to institutions whose acquisition policy is subject to national control under existing domestic legislation and not to require the enactment of new legislation to establish national control over other institutions.
The United States understands that Article 7(b) is without prejudice to other remedies, civil or penal, available under the laws of the States parties for the recovery of stolen cultural property to the rightful owner without payment of compensation.
The United States is further prepared to take the additional steps contemplated by Article 7(b) (ii) for the return of covered stolen cultural property without payment of compensation, except to the extent required by the Constitution of the United States, for those states parties that agree to do the same for the United States institutions.
The United States understands the words “as appropriate for each country” in Article 10 (a) as permitting each state party to determine the extent of regulation, if any, of antique dealers and declares that in the United States that determination would be made by the appropriate authorities of state and municipal governments.
The United States understands Article 13(d) as applying to objects removed from the country of origin after the entry into force of this Convention for the states concerned, and, as stated by the Chairman of the Special Committee of Governmental Experts that prepared the text, and reported in paragraph 28 of the Report of that Committee, the means of recovery of cultural property under subparagraph (d) are the judicial actions referred to in subparagraph (c) of Article 13, and that such actions are controlled by the law of the requested State, the requesting State having to submit necessary proofs.’

Translated into normal language, it basically means the US ain't gonna do squat unless it's something already in the US laws.

[khj]

Article 1

For the purposes of this Convention, the term `cultural property' means property which, on religious or secular grounds, is specifically designated by each State as being of importance for archaeology, prehistory, history, literature, art or science and which belongs to the following categories:

The part that gets easily missed and misunderstood is the phrase "SPECIFICALLY designated by EACH STATE as being of importance for...". The UNESCO articles make a list of item types. But it leaves it up to each state to determine whether all coins over 100 years old are prohibited, some of them, or none of them. As I mentioned, there are a few countries that will technically confiscate ANY item over 100 years old. But in what I have read in the news in the past, what happens more often than not is that items will be initially held, pending review on whether that particular item has been (or will be) declared protected/prohibited or not by the state. I'm subject to correction on that, but that's what I've read in the news in previous years.

[Mark]

The question here is will Google be reasonable at all regarding this? I think it's clear that it's not illegal to sell stamps over 100 years old. The main issue though is if we fight this it will probably bring attention to every seller on our website. If we don't fight it that could happen anyway. What ever happened to Google's motto of "Don't be Evil"...

-Mark

[khj]

If it were me (individual seller, not this entire site), I would ask to see an "official" Google policy statement. In other words, I want to know if this is simply the action of a single employee, or the official company policy. I'm betting that this was not an upper management action. At the same time, I would ask why they are trying to enforce a "conference proceeding" that most nations only selectively accept, and that almost no nation actively enforces. I would also point out to them that neither PayPal nor MoneyBookers enforces such a ban.

[Mark]

This is their policy:

http://checkout.google.com/support/sell/bin/answer.py?answer=75724

Which states as being banned by Google Checkout:

Protected cultural items and artifacts Material covered by the UNESCO 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property or otherwise restricted by law from sale, export or transfer; Artifacts, cave formations (speleothems, stalactites, and stalagmites) and grave-related items that are protected under federal laws, such as The Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988, and the Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act

Which is where they are basing the claim of stamps being over 100 years old are illegal to sell.

I can see it now: Google vs. Philately

-Mark

[cocollectibles]

What ever happened to Google's motto of "Don't be Evil"...

-Mark

Lawyers, that's what happened.

I say ignore it and not draw further attention to us. I can't believe that someone regularly reviews every Google Checkout stamp purchase to discern if a stamp is over 100 years old! Perhaps in this case, the seller had keywords such as "lot of stamps over 100 years old" or a date preceding 1910; we can caution sellers not to put such keywords in their titles.

Another thing you might want to point out to the Google Checkout folks is that their fee increase matches them with PayPal, so to most sellers there is no relative advantage in using their payment method; with this silliness, there is a distinct disadvantage for philatelists to do so.

[keesindy]

I rarely sell anything where a buyer uses Google, and have considered dropping that payment option. Maybe this is the impetus I needed to actually go ahead and drop them.

[michael78651]

I rarely have any purchases paid through Google, so to me it's a non-factor.

I agree, someone probably read something somewhere and pushed the panic button and an anal attorney felt it necessary to justify a paycheck for the week.

Kim, Italy is so protectionist with imports that you can hardly ship anything into that country anymore.

I agree to not even bring it up. I GooglePay makes a fuss about it, drop them as a payment option. It's Google's loss.

[Mark]

In this case the seller was specifically told his account will be suspended in 5 days if he does not stop accepting Google Checkout on stamps over 100 years old.

-Mark

[michael78651]

Postage stamps are fiscal instruments, not artifacts. If Google permits the payment for purchase of canceled stock certificates or canceled government bonds, then they have to allow the sale of postage stamps. They are not thinking of what a postage stamp is. All US postage stamps issued since 1862 are valid for postage, therefore, they are not artifacts. Many other countries as well permit the use of stamps older than 100 years for postage.

[khj]

What ever happened to Google's motto of "Don't be Evil"...

They picked the wrong motto. They should have picked "Don't be Stupid".

I like using Google Checkout because it's faster then PayPal (less waiting, one less click -- one less step to read and one less potential for mistake). I also don't have that 99 item limit problem with Google. But obviously, we have a new problem -- their stupidity. People are using PayPal/Google/MB to pay for far worse illegal items all the time, and they are going to pick on stamps? Also, I didn't realize Google had raised their transaction fees.

As I mentioned before, UNESCO leaves it up to the states to define what specific items in each category is actually prohibited/protected. UNESCO only lists the categories. Google does not have the power to determine for each country what they should actually be protecting. Also, the conference proceedings are intended to apply to import/export, so it has to be a cross-border transaction. I guess it's time to put Google Checkout and UNESCO in the same box labeled "well-intentioned but just plain stupid".

[cocollectibles]

I wonder if the seller in question might challenge this on their own behalf, not speaking for this or any other web site? if necessary, they can point out that auction houses, eBay, and dealers regularly sell such items without any problems and that Google is being too rigid about their policy. If the seller does this, and broadens the argument to everyone who potentially can sell stamps over 100 years old, then it won't be focused on BS (BidStart that is; it is already full of BS IMHO).