RMSTI to Relinquish or not Salvage Rights


Mar 20, 2000
3,107
25
323
I don't think there's anything wrong with the way you copied the article. You've included all proper source and credit information. I work in publishing - albeit only as a news writer - but I can say that this kind of responsible reprinting would thrill most editors. And the writer can only be thankful for the added exposure, believe me. We are paid next to nothing so any little bit of extra recognition makes up for it!
 

Mark Taylor

Member
Feb 20, 2001
52
0
156
Shelley:
You did the right thing in contacting the newspaper (I happen to know the writer of the piece) and asking about the reprint permission. Yes most like to have articles reprinted but, and this is important Randy, when they have given permission. In some cases (like the Wall Street Journal), they want payment for using on a web site or email distribution.

But that digresses from what is important here, that RMS Titanic (or as I call it RMS Junk-it) is facing possible SEC sanctions. The only thing that could make it worse is if the IRS comes after them. Once those hounds get on your trail, life becomes most unpleasant! :)
 
Mar 20, 2000
3,107
25
323
Mark don't patronize me. I have had my work reprinted in the press and on the net - with and without my express permission - and so long as I am duly credited I don't give a darn. That's my opinion. I don't need a word of caution from you about how writers feel about their material. And Shelley doesn't require a "warning" from you either. You're just mad that - heaven forbid - people might make up their own minds on the larger issue here.
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,620
742
563
Easley South Carolina
Well, regardless of how one takes it, Mark has a point, and Shelley is right to be cautious. When the legal eagles get on your tail, life can become "intersting" in some decidedly unpleasant ways.

For anyone who has any questions on copyright law, go HERE and HERE

Better safe then sued!
 
Mar 20, 2000
3,107
25
323
Excuse me, but Shelley WAS cautious to begin with. So Mark's point was moot. But I see his hissing got her to remove the story. Happy?

At any rate, though I'm no lawyer, it's easy to see that Shell's perfectly innocuous - but now deleted - post would have come under the "fair use" clause in U.S. Copyright Law, as quoted below:

TITLE 17 CHAPTER 1 SECTION 107 - Limitation of Exclusive Rights: Fair Use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, THE FAIR USE OF A COPYRIGHTED WORK, including such use by reproduction in copies of phoneorecords or by any other means specified by that section, FOR PURPOSES OF CRITICISM, COMMENT, NEWS REPORTING, TEACHING (including multiple copies for classroom use), SCHOLARSHIP, or RESEARCH, IS NOT AN INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT. In determining whether the use of a work in any particular case is a fair use, the factors to be considered shall include -

1) the purpose or character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes.

2) The nature of the copyrighted work

3) The amount or substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and

4) The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
 
Aug 29, 2000
4,562
25
323
Well all of this aside- this is a humdinger of an article and I do hope everybody reads this important story at the Pilot link above. All eyes are on the outcome and just as the settlement of salvor episode was a landmark decision in the history of maritime salvage laws, what happens in the end will have HUGE effect on what happens in like-type scenarios in the future. Now we have the technology to get down to these wrecks and salvage, the book is being re-written right under our noses. Remember what happened to the Atocha down in Florida? It's all very exciting to watch unfold, but all of here can't help but gulp white-knuckled to see what will happened to Titanic. Buckle your seatbelts-it IS going to be a bumpy ride.
 

Mark Taylor

Member
Feb 20, 2001
52
0
156
"You're just mad that - heaven forbid - people might make up their own minds on the larger issue here."

First, my advice was just that advice. You are free to accept or reject it as you see fit. I honestly do not want people to get zapped by the copyright protectors. They are not pleasant to deal with and can cause one considerable pain. So my advice was sincere.

Second, your personal comment about my being mad is totally uncalled for. I am not mad (neither angry nor clinically diagnosed as mad) nor am I trying to prevent people from making up their own minds on this or any other issue.

I run a web site that posts news articles related to Titanic. Any person who goes there can read the short caption of the news story and then click to read the entire news article. That certainly in no way impedes people from getting the information or preventing them from making up their own minds.

And nor are people limited to my site. They can go to any web news search engine and type in "Titanic" and get back the latest articles on the subject. There are numerous chats, forums, and web sites out there dedicated to Titanic. If I am, as you seem to think, trying to prevent people from making up their own minds, I am failing miserably in achieving such a goal! :)

The issue of giving up salvage rights is a serious one with ramifications we can only conjecture at this point. I am quite confident that people will be able to make up minds on their own with or without my posting on the issue.

With regards,
Mark Taylor
titanicnewschannel.com
 

Erik Wood

Member
Aug 24, 2000
3,519
15
313
Let us keep it friendly folks. Speaking as your ever loving Moderator of this here thread let's all keep in good cheer.
 

Jason D. Tiller

Moderator
Member
Aug 20, 2000
8,239
27
398
Niagara Falls, Ontario
Hi all,

Click on this link for an interesting article on the salvage issue. Titanic salvage

All my best,

Jason
happy.gif
 

Steve Smith

Member
Dec 14, 1998
152
1
263
Re The link posted by Jason -

Woa! Where did that quote from Ballard that he's in FAVOUR of salvage come from? Is that recent or from the time of the discovery and subsequent legal shennanigans?
 

Steve Smith

Member
Dec 14, 1998
152
1
263
Thanks Jason -
I didn't realise he'd been quite so overtly in favour of recovering items at any point: by the next year (the 86 expedition) he already seemed so anti salvage. His mind must of changed fast!

Steve
 
Jun 10, 1999
1,284
18
313
Dr. Robert Ballard could not find the essential backing to endeavor a furthur visit, and probable salvage of the Titanic wreck following 1986.

As if Dr. Ballard's emotions were not affected by the vass array of 72,000 stills he captured in '85 - '86, it is said that only upon his viewing of a *pair* of shoes lying in proximity of a previously consumed body...that he had a change of heart.

Michael A Cundiff
USA
 
G

Gavin Murphy

Guest
I have some news to share on this matter from a very reliable source. It appears that a British group may have gone to the wreck and retrived some artifacts from inside its hull. This is, of course, contrary to salvage law as RMST are still (for now) the court-appointed salvors-in- possession.

Nevertheless, because of this activity there is a renewed interest in ratifying the Titanic treaty of 2000, especially from the Americans.

So more developments on this matter......just around the time of 15 April as per usual........

For details on treaty and other legal matters, see my two articles posted under the ET Research section.

G
 

Similar threads

Similar threads