Ebay and selling - eBay Memorandum of Understandin

[BAJR Host]

more details and links from
http://www.finds.org.uk/wordpress/index.php/150

The British Museum and the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) have partnered with eBay.co.uk to ensure that antiquities found in the UK are being sold legally on its site.

In order to prevent illegal sales of treasure, the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS, which is managed by the British Museum on behalf of the MLA) has set up a team to monitor antiquities sold on eBay.co.uk and to ensure that sellers have the right to trade them. Where the listing is illegal, PAS will report it to the Art and Antiques Unit of the Metropolitan Police and eBay.co.uk, which has committed to end illegal listings.The commitment is the latest development in eBay’s on-going work with national law enforcement agencies.

eBay.co.uk is the first website to reach an agreement with the British Museum and the MLA banning the illegal sale of treasure over its trading platform,

English, Welsh and Northern Irish archaeological finds which constitute ‘treasure’ must be reported to the relevant authorities under the Treasure Act. Failing to report a find of treasure is a criminal offence.

In many cases, sellers innocently trade items on the web, unaware that finds need to be reported under the provisions of the Treasure Act. eBay has therefore also worked with the British Museum and PAS to create a guide to buying and selling antiquities safely on its site with advice about reporting obligations. The guide is to be found at http://pages.ebay.co.uk/buy/guides/antiquities

Dr Roger Bland, head of Portable Antiquities and Treasure at the British Museum said:

“We welcome eBay’s assistance in helping stop the illegal sale of antiquities on the internet with this partnership. Our experience is that most people who buy and sell UK archaeological finds do so without being aware that they may be breaking the law if items have not been reported. We have therefore worked with eBay to ensure that its users are aware of its obligations through our guide. We will also be contacting sellers to ensure that they have reported items and have appropriate documentation.”

Chris Batt, MLA Chief Executive added:

“For those who are selling items illegally, this partnership means we have in place a process to stop listings and take action against the individuals concerned. Doing so is vital because such activity is not only illegal but could also damage the archaeological record as, without effective reporting, valuable insights into our past could be lost forever.”

David Lammy, Culture Minister comments

“eBay is one of this century’s greatest success stories. A truly global phenomenon. But like us, they recognise that the expanding internet trade in art, antiquities and antiques has potential for abuse, and it is important that steps are taken to ensure that it does not unwittingly become a cover for criminality. I commend eBay for taking such a responsible stance.”

Garreth Griffith, head of Trust and Safety at eBay.co.uk, comments:

“Educating our customers on what to look out for when buying antiquities on eBay and informing sellers of their obligations is of paramount importance. Giving our customers the knowledge and engaging that knowledge to help with our investigations work means we have 15 million pairs of eyes and ears out there working with us on a day-to-day basis.

Working with British Museum and PAS and harnessing the strength of our community of buyers and sellers means we have an extensive network to ensure that antiquities are sold legitimately. It is also an excellent example of the way that eBay can work with law enforcement to track people seeking the break the law and bring them to account.”

DS Vernon Rapley, head of the Met Police Art & Antiques unit said:

“This is a really good example of the art market and those concerned in the preservation of antiquities working together to help prevent and detect cultural property crimes. We are fully supportive of the initiative and hope that it has a real impact on preventing illicit sales.”

———————-

The Scheme has also produced the attached monitoring leaflet, which documents the work of two volunteers who worked for me recently monitoring the trade on eBay and enriching our database for all to use. I am sure this story will generate much interest in the media. You can also download eBay’s guide to buying antiquities - buying_guide.pdf and the Scheme’s own version guide.pdf. Advice for potential purchasers of antiquities can also find this on the internet.

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[Steve-B]

Obviously it is beneficial that the parameters for selling finds is clearly laid out, however I do feel that some of the clarity has been omitted in this Ebay guide for example:


quote:For items found in England and Wales, sellers should be able to provide proof that items found before 24 September 1997 were reported under Treasure Trove or under the Treasure Act if found after that date. Sellers should be able to provide Crown Disclaimer documents

I do feel they have misworded this, whether accidentally or deliberately is another matter....

It should read that ' For TREASURE items found in England and wales etc etc.......

Although there is a note above it stating:


quote:Note: There is a legal obligation on sellers to report archaeological finds. These obligations depend on where in the UK the item was found:

A little bit misleading to those not in the know.....


Again in the section headed:

What to Consider When Listing Item


quote:Note: There is a legal obligation on sellers to report archaeological finds. These obligations depend on where in the UK the item was found:

for items found in England and Wales, sellers should be able to provide proof that items found before 24 September 1997 were reported under Treasure Trove or under the Treasure Act if found after that date. Sellers should be able to provide Crown Disclaimer documents

Again the word TREASURE is missed out....

Is there an aganda to incluide all finds under the one terminology of 'archaeological find' I wonder?

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

If a job is worth doing, then its worth doing it tomorrow!

Homer (Simpson)

[Steve-B]

quote:Dr Roger Bland, head of Portable Antiquities and Treasure at the British Museum said:

“We welcome eBay’s assistance in helping stop the illegal sale of antiquities on the internet with this partnership. Our experience is that most people who buy and sell UK archaeological finds do so without being aware that they may be breaking the law if items have not been reported. We have therefore worked with eBay to ensure that its users are aware of its obligations through our guide. We will also be contacting sellers to ensure that they have reported items and have appropriate documentation.”

With due respect to roger, the Law is only broken in respect of TREASURE items!

Or are they wording it ready for an expected change in the Law on which finds it is mandatory to record?




www.detector-distribution.co.uk

If a job is worth doing, then its worth doing it tomorrow!

Homer (Simpson)

[BAJR Host]

I would see it as a way in exceptional circumstances to ensure the protection of items that are not covered under Treasure Act.

Well spotted... I wonder if they could comment.

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[Steve-B]

Protecting in what way David...

This is supposed to be subject to the letter of the Law, not how one chooses to interpret it or to explain it others to suit ones on agenda.

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

If a job is worth doing, then its worth doing it tomorrow!

Homer (Simpson)

[BAJR Host]

It is all in the wording... the word Treasure did not have to be incuded as it is implicit in the wording... which does make sense to me after reading it again...

So becasue it is talking about


quote:items found before 24 September 1997 were reported under Treasure Trove or under the Treasure Act if found after that date.

Then the items it is talking about are by definition items classed as Treasure. I was wrong ini my original thought... should have read it properly Me!

There is no need for interpretation, as it is only applicable to items designated as Treasure (in England and Wales) and everything (in Scotland) as these are the only items classed as Treasure.

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[Steve-B]

Sorry to disagree David, but this is fine with the likes of you and me, who are conversant with the Treasure Act, but I still feel it is very misleading to those who are not..

Again Rogers statement is also ambiguous.

The BM/PAS have a duty to the public to state the law explicitly and I for one do not feel that this has been done.

Dont get me wrong for one second, I feel that this has been a very positive move, however.. say it how it is and not how you want it to be...

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

If a job is worth doing, then its worth doing it tomorrow!

Homer (Simpson)

[beamo]

I agree with Steve on this one - the wording is definitely misleading. Whether this is deliberate or not I have no idea.


Beamo

[garybrun]

I believe this is misleading as Steve points out.
To be honest as usual... things have not been properly thought out (CoP comes to mind) and released without looking at the total picture.
It seems that figures in reports and various other things, goal posts moves as to when it suits a certain agenda... the PAS agenda.

No records = no PAS! Hence the reliance on the recording statements every where. I will also be contacting ebay and ask them for a link to UKDFD and explaining the importance of recording. If anyone would like to help with advice I would appreciate it.
The heritage belongs to all.

http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording OUR heritage for future generations.

[BAJR Host]

I have been informed that the wording was EBays, not the preffered text of the PAS...

The statement is in legal terms implicit.. though it could have been clearer.

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[Steve-B]

quote:I have been informed that the wording was EBays, not the preffered text of the PAS...

Did they also Pen Rogers statement on the PAS site?



www.detector-distribution.co.uk

If a job is worth doing, then its worth doing it tomorrow!

Homer (Simpson)

[garybrun]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

I have been informed that the wording was EBays, not the preferred text of the PAS...


The reverse of the CoP that was PASs and the CBAs... npt the prefered wording of the NCMD. Its amazing how things just die down after people don't discuss them.

You still never came back with the full report on that conversation David regarding the CoP and the CBA if I remember.

http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording OUR heritage for future generations.

[Steve-B]

have just listened to Rogers radio interview on this matter, absolutely no mention of the thosuands of finds that are recorded..

No mention in the description of 10% min precious metals in Tresure items!

Rogers words:

"We are just monitoring the tip of the iceberg, those that fall within treasure...."

Time Team and PAS in the same interview!!

One wonders if the PAs are turning as anti detecting as the Time Team!

Bad form this.



www.detector-distribution.co.uk

If a job is worth doing, then its worth doing it tomorrow!

Homer (Simpson)

[garybrun]

I really dont understand the mentality of "biting the hand that feeds you"!!

http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording OUR heritage for future generations.

[garybrun]

The eBay policing document is a good thing (thought I would say this before others start to put words into my mouth). Its the wording that is misleading and does not give the overall picture regarding the recording of finds.

Food for thought....

quote:The irony of the British Museum - repository of Empire plunder of immeasurable significance to its creator people - acting as eBay's antiquities exploitation watchdog is not lost on us.

http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording OUR heritage for future generations.

[BAJR Host]

Ah the CBA CoP was basically a best wording fit with all the parties that signed up to it...

In as much as it was the only document that all groups agreed with.

I think Gary is right in that the document is a good thing... as with everything words in this can be confusing... (I got it wrong at first) However it is now clear that the definition is an artefact deemed or recorded as treasure.

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[Steve-B]

Sorry to appear arguementative David, but if you read this page as would someone not over familiar with the Treasure Act or the issues as we are more than used to discussing, then the document is far from clear and would indeed come across as ambiguous and contradictory.



www.detector-distribution.co.uk

If a job is worth doing, then its worth doing it tomorrow!

Homer (Simpson)

[BAJR Host]

http://pages.ebay.co.uk/buy/guides/antiquities/

when I read this page, it did seem to be clear about the definition 'Treasure'


quote:How Treasure is Defined by Law



1. Any metallic object, other than a coin, provided that at least 10 per cent by weight of metal is gold or silver and that it is at least 300 years old when found. If the object is of prehistoric date it will be Treasure provided any part of it is precious metal.

2. Any group of two or more metallic objects of any composition of prehistoric date that come from the same find (see below)

3. Two or more coins from the same find provided they are at least 300 years old when found and are composed of at least 10 per cent gold or silver (but if the coins contain less than 10 per cent of gold or silver there must be at least 10 of them). Only the following groups of coins will normally be regarded as coming from the same find:

(a) hoards that have been deliberately hidden,

(b) smaller groups of coins, such as the contents of purses, that may been dropped or lost, and

(c) votive or ritual deposits.

4. Any object, whatever it is made of, that is found in the same place as, or had previously been together with, another object that is Treasure.

5. Any object that would previously have been Treasure Trove, but does not fall within the specific categories given above. Only objects that are less than 300 years old, that are made substantially of gold or silver, that have been deliberately hidden with the intention of recovery and whose owners or heirs are unknown will come into this category.

Note: An object or coin is part of the "same find" as another object or coin if it is found in the same place as, or had previously been together with, the other object. Finds may have become scattered since they were originally deposited in the ground.

All finds of gold or silver found before 24 September 1997 should have been reported as Treasure Trove. All Treasure finds found after that date should have been reported under the Treasure Act 1996.

In Scotland there is a legal obligation to report all archaeological finds, no matter when they were found. Likewise in Northern Ireland there is the legal requirement to report all archaeological finds found after 1926.



It starts with


quote:Advice for Selling Antiquities Safely on eBay



In England, Wales and Northern Ireland there is a legal obligation to report Treasure finds: under the law of Treasure Trove if found before 24 September 1997 or under the Treasure Act 1996 if found after that date.



This to me makes it clear about what is and is not covered by the document... It defines what is legal (dependant on country) and what is 'Treasure' So if it does not fall into these catagories..

I would respond that the definition of what is covered in the agreement is only that which is 'Treasure' ie in England and Wales it is as already defined .. while in Scotland all artefacts are considered Treasure.

Argue away though... It's safe now ! ;)



"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[Steve-B]

I agree David, but as I said earleier, this message is not reiterate throughout the page.

How many uninformed, unused to the terminology are going to take that list in at first reading?

However when they scroll down to what they should or should not do on Ebay, which is more pertinent to their interests, all they see is referebces to 'Finds' having to be reported and documention of release, the distinction is not made...

I did ask to try to look at it from a different persepctive, not that of an archaeologist or detectorist... many buying on Ebay have never even heard of the Treasure Act or PAS.

Most 'Ebayers' will skip the difficult bits (Treasure Act) and go straight to the does and donts of Ebay.

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

If a job is worth doing, then its worth doing it tomorrow!

Homer (Simpson)

[Steve-B]

quote:I would respond that the definition of what is covered in the agreement is only that which is 'Treasure' ie in England and Wales it is as already defined .. while in Scotland all artefacts are considered Treasure.

Yes but this 'understanding' has distinctly blurring the edges between the differences of what constitutes a reportable find in Engalnd/Wales and what constitutes a reportable find in Scotland...

To me the more further down the page yuo read the more is reads that all finds in England/Wales are reprtable under the Treasure Act.



www.detector-distribution.co.uk

If a job is worth doing, then its worth doing it tomorrow!

Homer (Simpson)

[madbadrob]

But as I have asked on Britarch twice now, how do the PAS intend to show what is being sold ilegally and what is not. How can the PAS be sure that the landowner will get his 50% of the sale price? How can the PAS be sure that the item was even gotten legally with the land owners permission?

Isn't their a new UK law which outlaws the sale of artefacts gotten overseas without an export licence etc anyway, and if so then surely it would be a very easy job to remove these items anyway.

Finally remember E-Bay is a private business and they can do what they like including banning the sale of artefacts on their site and this in turn would outrage you even more

Rob

[Steve-B]

No Rob, thats where you are wrong, as I have said, I dont see this as a negative move at all, I agree with David that is a positive step forward.

My concern is as I have tried to exaplin, in the wording.

If Ebay chose to ban the selling of antiquities then all well and good as you say they are a private business.

But if they are trying to uphold the letter of the law then it should be stated as such.

I dont think that the equal sharing of profits is of interest to the PAS and neither should it be, their duty is to explain the current law as it is... even that to me is going far beyond their remit if we are to beleive that they are just a recording facility!

Is theere not another Government archaeological agency that should be responsiblefor this sort of thing?

I have tried to put my opinion across on Britarch, but I have no intention of being drawn into Paul and Nigels goading.

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

If a job is worth doing, then its worth doing it tomorrow!

Homer (Simpson)

[BAJR Host]

Glad you ain't falling for there goads... I am sorely tempted.. but mussssst ressssssssist... toooo strong........... no...must..... <SLAP> ah... thats better..

So much nicer here where we can actually talk!

Hello Paul

Anyway... I am seeing what you mean.. though they might argue as to why they have to keep explaining, when people should read the bit before...

As to Robs question ... That is for the PAS to explain... though I know they are unlikely to do so on Britarch.. Why not call them up. Anyway ..as a surveyor myself I would say Henry is an archaeologist too.

Theres a thread for BAJR baiting... when can you call yourself an archaeologist... I call myself and archaeologist... though I seldom pick up a trowel now.. hmmmm... you got me thinking Rob.

:face-huh:

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[Steve-B]

I built my own brick Barbie, used a trowel and all, can I be an Archaeologist please? :D

David, its not a case of keep explaining, but it is like any legaleese, the facts have to be consistant throughout the whole document, or at least refer back to the relevant clause... i.e when the term find is used, either name the relevant clause of simply call it treasure find, article of treasure, potential treasure, to soley call it the find is misleading.


It really is refreshing to be able to talk, even if we do not necessarily agree we can do so in a friendly non goading manner.


www.detector-distribution.co.uk

If a job is worth doing, then its worth doing it tomorrow!

Homer (Simpson)

[Steve-B]

Sorry forgetting my manners for a moment there Hosty....


Hi Paul.... :D

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

If a job is worth doing, then its worth doing it tomorrow!

Homer (Simpson)

[BAJR Host]

It may then be advisable to contact eBay and ask

I would guess that ther is some form of legaleese in there...

though all in all it is a step in a positive direction....as long as the PAS and UKDFD are not used as giving 'value' to objects.. they are places to record, not places to enhance value, or give a sense of validation.



"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[Steve-B]

quote:It may then be advisable to contact eBay and ask

Have you ever tried contacting Ebay?.. it would be easy to instal a direct line to God.


quote:though all in all it is a step in a positive direction....as long as the PAS and UKDFD are not used as giving 'value' to objects.. they are places to record, not places to enhance value, or give a sense of validation.

I couldnt agree more, this is a positive step, it would have been nice to have seen some consultation with the detecting community on this beforehand rather than the gunho maverick style that we are beginning to see from PAS.

You have rasied a very intereting point here Daivde, one that was mention ages ago when the PAS first started I believe, in that they do not become to be seen as a processing stage for the verification of finds destined to be sold.

This is one reason why consultation would have been better... and more thought given to this 'understanding' as it is a bit more complex than it forat appears.

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

If a job is worth doing, then its worth doing it tomorrow!

Homer (Simpson)

[garybrun]

This is true David regarding validations etc.
We have tried very hard to not give that impression on UKDFD.
We have had dealers using our database in various reports (links) to show what their objects are... but we can not prevent this as its a public database and I also know that PAS is also used in the same way.
UKDFD do not give out any valuations we leave that to the Treasure Trove ;)


http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording OUR heritage for future generations.

[BAJR Host]

Perhaps it is the valuations that are at the heart... if an object has monetary value.. it becomes saleable?

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[garybrun]

But how do you stop valuations???
I just bought myself a small farm and paid £50,000 over the valuation because we wanted it and loved it. You cant stop people wanting things. It depends how much you want something. The Coenwolf coin is a great example... how much did the BM pay for that???

http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording OUR heritage for future generations.