Re: R.M.S. Titanic

On 98-03-24, Tyler T. Ochoa <tochoa[_at_]law.whittier.edu> wrote:
>
> It is simply a notion of property law. If I own a unique item of
> private property, I don't have to let anyone photograph it without my
> permission, and in general I have the right to impose conditions on
> anyone who wants to photograph it. The First Amendment right of
> dissemination does not necessarily include a comparable right of access.
>
> This principle is weakened considerably if the unique item is
> visible to the public. In general, the response would be: if you don't
> want people to photograph your property, don't leave it out where it is
> visible to the public. If you do leave it visible to the public, anyone
> can photograph it.
>
> These two principles come into conflict where the private property
> cannot easily be sequestered from the public. The implication of waiver
> that arises when the private property owner has the option of keeping
> the item hidden and fails to do so does not arise in the case of salvage
> property that is still at the bottom of the ocean. The putative "owner"
> can't exactly remove it to a bank vault. Instead, they seek to declare
> the wreck and the surrounding area as private property. It is the
> equivalent of "staking a claim" to land under the mining laws.
>
> Here, apparently the salvors were successful in getting a court to
> declare that the wreck of the Titanic was private property belonging to
> the salvors; and that as a result, the salvors have the right to exclude
> anyone else from even exploring the wreck without their permission, much
> less photographing it. That may violate the public sentiment and our
> sense of the public domain; but if it is permitted under international
> admiralty law, I am hard-pressed to see how the federal court exceeded
> its authority in doing what it did.

If I understand you correctly, then, the remedy avaliable to the alleged owners of the Titanic against James Cameron (for example) would be found in property law. The alleged owners would have no right under copyright law to sue those photographing the actual wreck for infringement. Am I right?

Emil Pellicer
Colby, Monet, Demers, Delage & Crevier
Montreal, QC
Canada
Tel. (514) 284-3663
Fax. (514) 284-1961
<epellicer[_at_]colby-monet.com> Received on Wed Mar 25 1998 - 15:11:45 GMT