Who Owns Legal Salvage Rights for Shipwreck?

[William_2020]

Hello everyone. Curious to find out about salvage rights. Hypothetical question. If a ship breaks up into small parts as it goes down and is scattered on the ocean floor, and the exploration team discover only part of the wreck. Do they still get to claim salvage rights over the entire wreck, and do they receive the credit for discovering the wreck itself, even though they only discovered part of it? Does a required percentage have to be found before any salvage claim or credit of discovery can be made? Many thanks for your assistance.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[ARC]

Wellll there is a whole world of "Maritime Law".

In which resides the definitions of what is considered what.

But basically ... any ship in any condition is considered a "shipwreck"... even just parts... which are labeled "types" of shipwrecks... under specific terms...

Like... Lagan... Derelicts...jetsams... flotsams... ehhh I think that's it.

But overall... ANY ship that has been lost at sea is a "shipwreck"... all or part.

Even floating it is a shipwreck.

But as far as how "exact amount" of a wreck has to be there... not sure... if talking 1 plank of a deck floating...

I think that most control figures would call it yes.

 

[ECS]

That why there be lawyers!

 

[William_2020]

Cheers. A friend is researching the wreck of the Titanic. Apparently there was some legal battle back in the 1980s over who really found the Titanic because one team found a large propeller blade from the ship which fell off and they wanted to return and document more of the wreck but their expedition was cut short because of bad weather. They announced confidently that they had found the wreck and they wanted to make salvage claims for it, but around 5 years later a competitive team showed up and they searched the area and discovered the main bulk of the wreck and took all the credit, fame, and legal rights. I think the legal battle went on for years and the second team who found the main bulk of the ship had won. I am curious to learn if that was unfair because the first team found part of the ship (a large propeller blade) and they would have found more if the weather had been better, and perhaps in some measure their research was used by the second team who found the rest of the ship. I can see why the legal battle went on for some time, and I wonder if the law was changed during the proceedings which set the legal definition of how much percentage of a wreck has to be discovered before any claims can be made for legal possession of it. My friend is puzzled by it, and I would like to help him if possible.

 

[ARC]

Cheers. A friend is researching the wreck of the Titanic. Apparently there was some legal battle back in the 1980s over who really found the Titanic because one team found a large propeller blade from the ship which fell off and they wanted to return and document more of the wreck but their expedition was cut short because of bad weather. They announced confidently that they had found the wreck and they wanted to make salvage claims for it, but around 5 years later a competitive team showed up and they searched the area and discovered the main bulk of the wreck and took all the credit, fame, and legal rights. I think the legal battle went on for years and the second team who found the main bulk of the ship had won. I am curious to learn if that was unfair because the first team found part of the ship (a large propeller blade) and they would have found more if the weather had been better, and perhaps in some measure their research was used by the second team who found the rest of the ship. I can see why the legal battle went on for some time, and I wonder if the law was changed during the proceedings which set the legal definition of how much percentage of a wreck has to be discovered before any claims can be made for legal possession of it. My friend is puzzled by it, and I would like to help him if possible.

Correct... and the outcome of that precedent case would most likely outline any other wreck cases similar in nature.

Unless of course...

A NEW case's outcome now defined a new "look" at the case at hand.

Law is a deeper subject than the depth of water the Titanic rests in.

 

[Jason in Enid]

But in the end its all completely useless because any value you salvage will be confiscated by A) the nation owning the water it sits in, B) the nation who owned the ship before it went down C) the insurance company who insured the vessel D) the heirs of every single person on board the ship. Pick above, or all.

 

[capt dom]

Cheers. A friend is researching the wreck of the Titanic. Apparently there was some legal battle back in the 1980s over who really found the Titanic because one team found a large propeller blade from the ship which fell off and they wanted to return and document more of the wreck but their expedition was cut short because of bad weather. They announced confidently that they had found the wreck and they wanted to make salvage claims for it, but around 5 years later a competitive team showed up and they searched the area and discovered the main bulk of the wreck and took all the credit, fame, and legal rights. I think the legal battle went on for years and the second team who found the main bulk of the ship had won. I am curious to learn if that was unfair because the first team found part of the ship (a large propeller blade) and they would have found more if the weather had been better, and perhaps in some measure their research was used by the second team who found the rest of the ship. I can see why the legal battle went on for some time, and I wonder if the law was changed during the proceedings which set the legal definition of how much percentage of a wreck has to be discovered before any claims can be made for legal possession of it. My friend is puzzled by it, and I would like to help him if possible.

The words "fair, unfair and if" usually are only applicable to the context of the first person user... What is "fair" to a a prospective discoverer of a portion of an abandoned shipwreck is and will always be subject to the claims of "others" once the expense of the risks and merits of those who choose to undertake providing save harbor and recovery of a shipwreck's cargo and apparel. Just remember, the guys with the guns make the rules.... The guys with the biggest guns rules usually prevail... Just ask Tommy Thompson...

 

[enrada]

In terms of the Titanic, are you talking about Jack Grimm of Abilene Texas or the RMS Titanic Corporation?

 

[1637]

spain own all of them,just ask them
brad

 

[William_2020]

In terms of the Titanic, are you talking about Jack Grimm of Abilene Texas or the RMS Titanic Corporation?

I think it might be Jack Grimm. He talks about his discovery in this interview.


https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth864083/m1/#track/1

 

[Boatlode]

Depends how far apart the "pieces" are. Salvage leases are granted by location.

 

[MiddenMonster]

spain own all of them,just ask them
brad

I think there is a law on the books that states Robert Ballard has the right to claim any wreck he wants, unless Spain claims the wreck before Ballard has a signed deal for a Nova episode...

 

[Magoopeter]

The Titanic is in International water, so no nation can enforce its own laws where it does not have jurisdiction. How ever you have the UN, and of course the international salvage law and salvor in possession.
I would think it would depend on were the rights were granted. From what I can tell with the US law you need to items from the wreck to prove you have found it and then you are granted right to all a wreckage with in a defined area.

Example

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION.
The Scattered, Commingled, Unidentified, ) Wrecked, and (for finders-right purposes) ) Abandoned, Vessels and Jetsam, ) located within an area enclosed by ) a line running from 27°08’N, 79°12’W ) to 27°24’N, 79°07’W to ) 27°23.9’N, 78°38.43’W and returning to ) 27°08’N, 79°12’W, excluding any portion ) of same within the 12 mile limits of the ) Territorial Sea of any sovereign nation, )

The word abandoned is important, you can only claim a wreck if it has been abandoned that is defined by a period of time or if it has no owners or the owners have publicly announced they have given up all ownership of the wreck.
So, if the people who have been granted the rights to the Titanic by an American court, have not continued ongoing salvage operations on the wreck then it could be deemed as being abandoned by them so open to another salvor. There are court cases were after a period of six months a wreck has been demand as being abandoned even after the owners employed a salvage company on a wreck.

The other thing is, in international waters the law you are under is the nation that the ship is registered two, so even if the Titanic rights are granted to someone by a US court, there is nothing to stop anyone with a vessel not registered in the US salvaging it under the international law of salvage as long as they land the recovered cargo in another country and report it under whatever law applies in that jurisdiction .
As a principle an admiralty court should favour the law of salvage over the law of finds, as acting under the law of salvage you are voluntary acting to recover the owner’s property for the owner and are claiming rewarded as salvor. Under the law of finds you are claiming there is no owner that opens up a mind field as if the owner comes along, you then you have to hand over your finds to there rightful owner with no rewarded, if there is no owner, then your fine in both cases.

 

[Alexandre]

The wreck of the Titanic now protected by UNESCO | United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

The Titanic is in International water, so no nation can enforce its own laws where it does not have jurisdiction. How ever you have the UN, and of course the international salvage law and salvor in possession.
I would think it would depend on were the rights were granted. From what I can tell with the US law you need to items from the wreck to prove you have found it and then you are granted right to all a wreckage with in a defined area.

 

[Magoopeter]

Does UNESCO have legal power?

UNESCO elaborates legal instruments in the form of declarations, recommendations and conventions, which are adopted by UNESCO's Member States. Operational principles of such legal instruments: ... In principle, a Recommendation does not create a legally binding obligation on a Member States.

If a state has not ratified a UNESCO treaty there is nothing to stop you using a vessel registered to that state to salvage any wreck in international waters protected by UNESCO?
Also, under the United Nations Law there is no law than can prevent an owner from retrieving their property be it a shipwreck cargo or personal effects from a shipwreck.

 

[Alexandre]

Not UNESCO. But, the US and the UK, do.


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/21/wreck-titanic-protected-treaty-signed-uk-and-us

Does UNESCO have legal power?

 

[Magoopeter]

No doubt a bunch of ill-informed academics behind this, it limits the countries you can operate from or return to but does not fully protect the wreck.

This has a very negative effect on the archaeology community and has grave consequence for historically important shipwrecks worldwide. If UNESSCO, s policy wins through, every wreck will be left to rot on the seabed. How can they say a wreck is protected by the very nature of the oceans, mechanical attrition, decomposition of organic material and the process if galvanic corrosion wrecks will slowly dissolve into the seabed?

The article again brings forwarded the issue of a shipwreck being a grave, the whole of Europe is a grave, indeed a war grave, it does not stop farmers farming or motor ways being built, instead when a grave is discovered proactive measures are taken and archaeologist employed to insure the remain are removed to be buried in a proper respectful manner in a proper place.

Governments in general, and the archaeological community in particular, especially the underwater archaeological academic world, have been strongly opposed to, and very combative against, the practices of any kind of commercial work performed on historical shipwrecks. They have done so with extremism and determination, succeeding in describing anybody involved in this practice as a “treasure hunter”, a “pirate”, a “tomb robber” or worse. Their main complaint is that salvage companies do not care about preserving history, because they are only interested in the artefacts, or conducting sound archaeological practices (not always necessarily true), but only about making money for their investors (mostly true).
Their main argument is that by selling these items recovered from the sea, and dividing or splitting the collection, the integrity of the archaeological record is lost. As a result, the treasures and artefacts are spread all over the world, to be sold to collectors or tourists, and its access to the general public, and the academic community, vanishes forever (which is actually a valid point).
Archaeology is the study of a million years of human behaviour. Compared to other arts and humanities, archaeology is as valuable as music, art, literature and history. It should not be used to limit humanity by siding with unrealistic measures that denies humans the right to continue practice that have been taking place for hundreds of years.

By placing exclusions on shipwrecks, we are abounding such a wealth of educational material in the seabed, that through partnership with archaeologist and salvor, s could provide such a vital resource for todays and future generations to study.
A balance is needed, policy and guide lines put in place by all governments to allow commercial salvage on historical shipwrecks. In some cases guide lines would forbid the sale of artefacts, therefore a trust would need to be formed to keep complete collections together with only a cross section artefacts being held or displayed in a Museum, coins and bullion should be sold, how many coins do you need sitting in a museum after all they are legal tender a commodity more than an artefact.

Most countries have cultural patrimony laws that prohibit the sale of artefacts recovered from the ocean floor. Therefore, there is no incentive to find and excavate these thousands of shipwrecks. Similarly, local government and their institutions are not able to attempt these endeavours on their own, due to the very high costs and the ever-shrinking heritage and cultural department budgets. Everyone loses under the current regime: commercial archaeology companies do not get to develop underwater projects; scientists, historians and archaeologists do not get to do their academic work; the public does not get to enjoy the exhibits; and cities that could host them do not get to benefit from the commercial development that these shipwrecks provide and represent as proven tourist attractions, a whole industry is left on the sea bed, everybody loses.

It is time to get proactive about shipwrecks, to have a way forward that protects everyone’s rights and historically important material while working together, to provide an education avenue for archaeology students to have hands on experience, for collectors to have something to collect and for Cities and town to have museums that reflect the Maritime history associated with us all and you and me to have an interest and dreams to chase.

 

[Alexandre]

This has a very negative effect on the archaeology community

What is the negative effect?

If UNESSCO, s policy wins through, every wreck will be left to rot on the seabed. How can they say a wreck is protected by the very nature of the oceans, mechanical attrition, decomposition of organic material and the process if galvanic corrosion wrecks will slowly dissolve into the seabed?

They meant that it is protected from treasure hunting... All the other factors still apply.

 

[ROBOTCOP13]

Don't worry, Trump will take care of it in his second term.

 

[Alexandre]

I heard he took the US out of the UNESCO...