RMSTI to Relinquish or not Salvage Rights


Shane Jenkins

If salvage rights were lost by RMSTI would this be a bad thing? In my opinion no. As long as the artifacts are being displayed to the global public after salvage. I recently saw a documentary which should a breif interveiw with Arnie Geller & George Tulloch of RMSTI saying that they didn't feel right about salvaging artifacts from Titanic as it had not been 2000 years since the sinking which is when the salvaging would be of most interest, similar to the ancient Egyptians.
Just a quick reality check guys- Titanic won't be there in 2000 years at the rate at which the vessel is disappearing!
Jul 9, 2000
Easley South Carolina
>>If salvage rights were lost by RMSTI would this be a bad thing? In my opinion no. <<

Unfortunately, if RMSTI gives up salvage rights. the Titanic becomes fair game for anybody with the money and resources to mount another expedition and there's no gaurantee that they'll be an especially ethical lot. I don't think there are a lot of people here who love RMSTI, including some that own stock in the company, but they at least are the Devil we know.

It's the devil we don't know that concerns me. The "cure" could turn out to be far worse then that which is sneered at as the "disease."

Bill Willard

Mar 24, 2001
RMSTI filed an 8-K today. The last paragraph states:

"While both the potential donation of the Company's salvor-in-possession status and the potential donation of the Company's artifact collection are at an early stage of development, the Company's Board of Directors endorses both donation initiatives. Prior to the April 14, 2003 hearing, the Board of Directors unanimously agreed to revoke, rescind and void the Board's prior resolution regarding the unilateral relinquishment of the Company's salvor-in-possession status. "

Well, I guess this confirms that the company will not ask to relinquish salvor status.


Mark Taylor

Feb 20, 2001
It is an interesting turn of events for the beleagured RMS Titanic Inc (RMSTI). Still in deciding to go the donation route, that poses a lot of hurdles. And raises lots of questions. This will get interesting indeed.

Mark Taylor

michelle rowlett

J have posted a couple of messages lately one to this thread only on thurs this week, and when i have gone back to look for it, it has "gone" can the moderators shed any light on this please.

Mark Baber

Jul 4, 2000
Try using the "Last Week" link at the bottom of the page; you should be able to find any recent messages using that function.
Jan 7, 2002
I'm wondering if I misread the article on CNN- It seems to imply the current incarnation of RMSTI wants to retain and renew their salvor in possession claim on the wreck, and continue expeditions to recover artifacts.......
It seems at one point they were trying to challenge their own claim on the wreck, so as to procure the rights to sell objects...

If they go this route, I implore them to


They dropped the ball big time in not buying the Nomadic...

I am a big fan of the exhibit-I saw first hand how special they are- But they need to look at the long term future and well being of the artifacts, not just the next city.
Exhibitions could still take place- but a permanent facility is a place where conservation could happen onsite, the more fragile artifacts (such as the Big Piece) could be exhibited- and all the dive footage could be archived and put in a video library, where visitors could view footage of past expeditions....
I hope the desire to preserve these artifacts is genuine, but without a stable conservation facility, and without relationships with academic institutions, the endeavor will be looked upon with great scepticism by academia....

I just hope this is not just about riding the Titanic wave through 2012...

The artifacts need a permanent home......
If RMSTI wants to earn any respect and credibility in the eyes of the underwater archaeology community- they need to take a new tact, create a permanant museum and need new leadership.


Tarn Stephanos
Jan 7, 2002
I can't find an active link- so here is a copy and paste, from PRNewswire:

"RMS Titanic, Inc. Files for its Historic Salvage Award with the United States District Court

ATLANTA, Nov. 30 /PRNewswire/ -- RMS Titanic, Inc. ("RMST"), a wholly
owned subsidiary of Premier Exhibitions, Inc. (Nasdaq: PRXI) today
announced that it has filed a motion for an interim salvage award with the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk
Division (the "Court") docket number: 2:93-cv-00902.

[Moderator's Notes: 1. Edited post to remove article due to copyright issues. 2. For anyone interested in reading the rest of the story, please do so through the ET home page as posted above. JDT]
Jan 7, 2002
"RMST filed its motion
on an interim, rather than final basis, as it intends to conduct additional
research and recovery expeditions to the famous wreck site"

I wonder what they have planned?
Jan 25, 2009
Hi this is my 1st post...

I was reading return to Titanic and in it Bob Ballard stated that RMS Inc.. is relinquishing their rights to the wreak is that true?
Jul 9, 2000
Easley South Carolina
From the BBC:

US firm awarded $110m for salvaging Titanic artefacts

A judge has awarded a US exhibition company $110m for salvaging artefacts from the wreck of the RMS Titanic.

The US federal judge ruled that RMS Titanic Inc, which displays the artefacts in museums across the world, is entitled to their full market value.
More at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10973009

Comment: This should get some tounges wagging!​

Mike Poirier

Dec 12, 1999
This is sad. RMST has been a for-profit company and its shares traded on the market. They've already been compensated!The judge's ruling made it seem like no one has made a penny of the recovery and display of the artifacts. Very disappointed!
Jun 10, 1999
I too am very disappointed with these result's.
Never would have happened in George Tulloch's tenure as President of RMSTI.

On a brighter note...check out a sneak peek of the virtual Titanic expedition slated for August of this year. Go to the RMSTI web-page.

Michael Cundiff
Jul 9, 2000
Easley South Carolina
>>The judge's ruling made it seem like no one has made a penny of the recovery and display of the artifacts. <<

Since I haven't seen any of the financial statements which RMSTI would be obliged to file with the tax authorities and the SEC, I can't really speak to that, however, my understanding is that RMSTI has actually lost money over the long haul.

The exhibitions themselves may have changed that picture. I wonder if Bill Willard could offer anything which would shed some light on this.

Doug Criner

Dec 2, 2009
Personally, I'm disgusted.

I have before me a nautical chart for the Isles of Scilly (off England). The Admiralty has placed two circles, labeled "Historic Wreck," with notes essentially indicating to stay away, don't anchor, etc.

The U.S. courts have seemingly asserted itself as having jurisdiction over the Titanic wreck. Why, and on what basis?

If the U.K. can declare historic wrecks as "off limits," then why can't the U.S.? OK, the wrecks off the Isles of Scilly are in U.K. waters. The Titanic is in international waters, but since the U.S. courts have claimed jurisdiction, can't they declare the wreck "historical" and off limits?

I'm not a lawyer. But it seems that U.S. courts usually adjudicate between two contesting parties. Is any party contesting RMSTI in this case? Who? Where are the legal filings?

Similar threads

Similar threads