Titanic

[Cablava]

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 11:36 p.m. ET
By MICHAEL FELBERBAUM Associated Press Writer
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) -- The company that has exclusive salvage rights to the wreckage of the Titanic does not own the site or the artifacts recovered from it, a federal appeals court said Tuesday.

The ruling by a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a decision by the U.S. District Court in Norfolk.

Atlanta-based RMS Titanic Inc. had sought full ownership over the nearly 6,000 artifacts it has recovered from the 1912 shipwreck. The company says the artifacts are worth more than $71 million.

In 1994, the federal court granted the company sole salvage rights, allowing them to recover artifacts from the luxury liner provided they would be used in the public interest. The court also barred the company from selling the artifacts, including passengers' clothing and part of the ship's hull.

In Tuesday's ruling, the appeals court denied the company's request to own the artifacts rather than act as a caretaker for the collection. The company had asked the court to apply the rule of "finders-keepers" to what it recovered from the wreckage.

"A free finders-keepers policy is but a short step from active piracy and pillaging," wrote Judge Paul V. Niemeyer.

The panel did, however, vacate the Norfolk court's ruling that denied RMS Titanic salvage-in-possession rights over about 1,800 artifacts recovered in 1987 from the Titanic.

The appeals court ruled the lower court did not have jurisdiction in the case. The company had been given full ownership rights to the artifacts by the French government.

The luxury liner sank on its maiden voyage on April 14, 1912, nearly 400 miles off Newfoundland, Canada, killing more than 1,500. The wreckage was located in 1985.

More than 16.5 million people worldwide have visited traveling exhibits of the collection. Proceeds are reinvested in the company's salvage efforts, said Arnie Geller, president and chief executive of RMS Titanic Inc.

Geller said the decision to keep the 1987 artifacts under the original French agreement is the "greatest assurance of keeping the exhibition together."

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[DougRecovery]

I think for the first time in my life i agree with an American court ruling that ive read about, im all for diving wrecks and even recovering artifacts from some of the much older ones but making money off the back of "Titanic" is wrong and i will never agree with it. Mainly because i have a personal connection with the old lady and because i just believe in this case its wrong. But thats just one mans opinion.

 

[99*]

That`s a tough one, I dont think its wrong, nothing is right about messing up someones last resting place, however some of the artifacts should be removed, and put on display and as long as the company who removes them is striclty regulated then I think they could serve a better purpose in maitaining and honouring those people who perished, if I died out there I would be happy to know that people learn from my life or history is revealed through my belongings, again as long as its regulated and not Ebayed, My wife will inherit original tool set owned by an engineer on board, he passed away but before his last voyage parted with it as a gift of gratitude to her great grandfather. Tough call but I and only an opinion, think there is more value in removing and displaying than leaving it to vanish. 99*

 

[grizzly bare]

The vessel lies in international waters and has been effectively abandoned by all owners. I think it is WRONG for any court to decide the fate of any articles on the Titanic. No international body has a legal right to decide what is done in waters which they do not own. I realize that such a view allows whaling, dumping, overfishing and a world of other woes, but how can America, England, Japan, etc., tell me what to do in waters they do not control? The twelve mile limit, the three mile limit, the two hundred mile limit, all are semi-reasonable. On the other hand, this company spent a fortune doing something others declared impossible or insane.
They salvaged these artifacts, give them clear ownership.
On a tangent, every piece of ground, every piece of antiquity, every sunken vessel, has personal significance to someone:does that mean that we stop all digs and recoveries? We have discussed Braddock's Treasure. Should it be off limits because of the loss of life associated with it? Blackbeard's "Queen Anne's Revenge"? The lost Aztec treasures?
I am NOT advocating the free despoilation of our heritage, (YES! Gettysburg should be preserved for all time!)
but the Titanic is NOT of cultural or historical interest. It's just another boat to be salvaged.

My opinion, you may not agree, but just think, What does give anyone the right to tell us not to recover in the open seas.

grizzly bare

 

[DougRecovery]

Ok i can understand your feelings towards it and at the end of the day it is just my opinion however saying that Titanic is not of historical interest is like saying that "Exxon valdez" is of no historical interest, in my opinion every wreck is of some significance or other and they should not all be plundered for the sole purpose of getting rich but once again this is just my opinion and ive always been taught to respect everybody's opinion.

 

[grizzly bare]

No disrespect seen or taken. Appreciate your point of view.
What is the historical significance of the Titanic? Did it change the world? 1300 people died. we lose more than that each month in the US to auto accidents. Should all shoulders of roads be off limits to detectors?
I'm no lawyer, but I've heard that "slippery slope" argument many times. If we start, where do we stop?
If 1300 is enough to stop one from salving, how about 1000? or 500? or 100? Isn't our country built on the idea that one person is as valuable as a dozen?
I would never have thought of salvaging items from the Titanic. These folks did and successfully found and retrieved articles. Let them enjoy the fruits of their labors.
No matter how powerful governments think themselves to be, they have no legal right to control objects not in their sphere of influence. Passing a law does not make something illegal. The law has to stand under scrutiny.

grizzly bare

 

[chuckered]

I think after all the expense and time they spent, it is their right to salvage anything in that ship, my option is that if they can find anything inside or outside territorial waters,it should be allowed, the only regulation on my option is that the countries have first right to buy it at fair market value. The seizing of their findings is nothing more than piracy. I think that ships of the Navy or battlegrounds should never been touched, but there should be a hundred years set on it because after that there usually never any human remains left or anything else. Like everyone else is my option weather good or bad, just like we are seeing ,they keep changing the rules, they start with one rule and next thing you know we aren't going to hunt at all because become a piece of history to someone, I guess you can say If something lost one year ago would be part of history to someone, so it shouldn't be touched.

 

[wreckdiver1715]

If Bob were only half as smart as he would have us think he is, he would have filed an Admiralty claim when he found the Titanic. Then only Bob would be able to dive the wreck and we would all only see what he wanted us to see.

 

[grizzly bare]

chuckered,
here I am dancing all around what I want to say and you come along and put it perfectly! I need to start drinking more.

grizzly

 

[mariner]

GB,

So if you don't think there should be any laws in International waters, is Piracy OK in those areas, and Murder ? If you don't think these should be allowed, then where do you draw the line? The reason why the laws of salvage apply is that dozens of countries signed an international agreement that they should,and any of those countries can administer the International convention, if approached. As I recall, the present salvors of Titanic got exactly what they asked for in the first place: the right to recover objects and put them on display. In view of the fact they did not actually discover the wreck, I think they did OK out of it. As WD 1715 says, if Ballard had had his wits about him, he could probably have secured sole rights to salvaging the wreck, but as it turns out I think the courts have applied quite a clever and appropriate judgement.

Mariner

 

[grizzly bare]

mariner,
i have read and respected your posts for some time, but we may have to disagree on this one. You are right of course, that dozens of countries signed an agreement. Unfortunately there are more than 150 countries on earth. Seems that the few are trying to rule the majority. Of course I don't think piracy is right. Murder, theft, rape, all cannot be condoned. I do not want theft on the high seas, not even from our government or some gtoup of countries. And that is what they are doing, stealing from the people who could benefit from undersea treasures.
Laissez-faire, he rules best who rules least..we could throw adages at each other for hours. Unfortunately that will not change our opinions. A member of our group often posts that when he goes hunting on the US-Mexican border he goes packing heavily. Why? Can't our government control drug smugglers and illegal aliens in our own borders? NO! Instead of sticking their noses in where they have NO LEGAL RIGHT they should be securing the promise of liberty to us and our childtren.
At some point, Judicial Review will determine the authority of the government to control areas where we have no legal interests.
Oddly enough, I believe the government has overlooked a simple truth, if we try to rule an area then we must accept responsibility for that area. I don't think that our government is ready to accept responsibility for all the actions that go on at sea. If they won't accept responsibility, then they cannot take jurisdictional control.

I am not a lawyer and I am not advocating any action,

grizzly bare

 

[DougRecovery]

Grizzly Bear,
Im in england so im not really at all sure about the road deaths in america however i actually whole heartedly agree with you a loss of life is a loss of life be it 1300 or 1 it is what it is! the basis of my argument is diminishing but i will still stick to my opinion that Titanic was historically significant and her loot shouldnt be sold off however your argument is incredibly persuasive. but as my ex would tell you i am a stubborn git so im not going to change my opinion completely how about we agree to disagree?

doug

 

[Cablava]

Hope you can agree to disagree as this is getting like the subarch forum.

 

[mariner]

Cablava.

I am sure we can respect each other and agree to disagree on lots of points, but it is the healthy exchange of opposing views that can cause one to reflect on, and perhaps modify, one's own position. In many cases we agree on 90% of a subject and argue like crazy about the 10%

I agree with you GB that if the US wants to have influence and authority beyonmd its borders, it needs to exercise responsibility as well.

Mariner

 

[seal]

I have been captured by the overwhelming mists that surround the Titanic and her short life.

I have always been strongly against the raping of one of the World's largest maritime gravesite and it is about time that someone told the company who claim to preserve the Titanic where they can shove their heads. It makes me sick with their profit from a graveyard, take their project of cutting and raising a portion of the Hull to the surface just so that they can sell Paperweights from it is the lowest that someone can go.

It maybe in International Waters so then the UN should set up permanent protection over the wreck as it should be left undisturbed, without companies pulling objects off her and selling them and also to stop any tours down to see her.

LET THE OLD MAJESTIC LADY REST IN PEACR

 

[mariner]

Seal,

There's hardly a wreck that didn't take somebody down with her. One or a thousand, a principle is a principle, so would you apply your logic to any wreck where at least one person went down with the ship?

Mariner

 

[bobinsd]

Such sentimentality makes me sick. If the movie hadn't come out no one would give a damn. To use words like "raping" is an insult to every woman who has been victimized.

And how many sets of bones are actually there in the hull. Seems to me everyone who died drifted away from the site.

Its a sunken ship. No more, no less. Please don't prey on my sensabilities with your elitist whining. If our great-grandfathers had the technology we have today the ship would have been salvaged in 1913. And those companies that offer insight and education into the cause of the sinking because of their recovery efforts, should be rightfully rewarded for going to the expense that no government would have ever gone Those governments should not be afforded the right to judge. Gecy...what do you have to say?

Bob
:P

 

[rgecy]

I rarely speak out on topics this heated, but I have to express my concerns on this. If I offend anyone, I am just expressing my freedom of speech.

If we deemed every wreck that had loss of life a gravesite, 95 percent of them would be off limits! If they are concerned there are bodies or remains still on board, we now the technology to find them. The truth is, after 90 something years and being under 15000+ feet of water, they have yet to find a single human remain. These salvors are not there to steel or plunder a ring from a corps finger or loot the pockets of passengers. They are bringing up history and enlightening the world about this tragic disaster, and it cost money to do it!

If Ballard had found the Titanic and the salvors had stayed away, do you not think that Bob Ballard and the Archaeologist would be right there exploiting it to their means today! Thats is all he has done is exploited this wreck to promote himself over the years!

Lets also take this to heart. If Archaeologist choose to excavate a site and come across human remains, do you think they immediately stop working and do not remove any artifacts? Do they deem the site a grave site, cover up the remains, and never return? No! They do even worse! They excavate the body, examine it, and then store it in boxes in some warehouse to sit until the end of time!

If this is the case and everyone is so concerned about the human remains, maybe we should cry out to the archies to bury all the skeletons they have excavated over the years that are just sitting around gathering dust! Why are they any different?

Robert in SC

 

[da Hobo]

I had absolutely no interest in this thread and barely do now because of the two very obvious extreme views one would expect. However, I keep seeing sprinkled throughout the posts here heart wrenching references to history and learning . . . .

PLEASE, does anyone think that this company or group, whatever it is, is diving on the Titanic for historical purposes? If so, please meet me in New York at the site of a bridge you might be interested in. I can make you a hell of a deal.

Hobo

 

[grizzly bare]

By the way, how many people died in the wrecks of the 1715 fleet? How would we feel if that area was put off limits because of the "historical significance"?

grizzly bare