Re: R.M.S. Titanic

On 3/24/98, Tyler 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.
[snip]
> 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.

Yes, but this is precisely the question. The wreck may be declared the private property of the salvors, but the ocean is nobody's property outside the territorial limits. It's as if my property right in the rusting hulk of the auto I smacked up, out in the middle of the road, gave me the right to prevent anyone from photographing it. I don't think that's how it works.

I am not, of course, an admiralty lawyer, and the physical difficulty attendant on accessing and photographing the Titanic wreck without actually touching or entering it would certainly be its own deterrent, but I question the legal position supporting an order against photography that does not actually trespass on that which is the salvor's property.

Vance R. Koven
<vrkoven[_at_]world.std.com> Received on Wed Mar 25 1998 - 15:21:37 GMT