> "Is there any obligation to turn over treasure you find yourself?"
There is, in some places.
For example, the UK Treasure Act:
"Under the Act, treasure is owned by the Crown"
"The act requires finders of treasure—specifically, gold/silver objects >300 years old, coin hoards, or significant metallic items >200 years old—to report them to a local coroner within 14 days"
The UK Merchant Shipping Act (applies to recovery from wrecks):
"all wreck material recovered in UK territorial waters or brought into the UK must be reported to the Receiver of Wreck within 28 days."
The USA Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987, grants states title to wrecks in their waters.
There's also the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) which applies to international waters.
"All objects of archaeological and historical nature in [international waters] must be preserved or disposed of for the benefit of mankind, with particular regard to the country of origin, cultural origin, or historical/archaeological origin."
Their point is that quoting chatgpt is a bad comment.
What's your point? It would be just as bad for someone to google a question and copy the first result snippet verbatim. So you've successfully brought up another bad way to comment.
I'm a scuba-diver and qualified marine archaelogist with a long-standing interest in archaeology and history.
I used Google to find suitable lay-descriptions/citations for the topics I already knew about (UK law on treasure and maritime law on salvage), and to understand more about applicable laws in the USA.
If you don't believe what otherwise sounds reasonable take, I don't know what to tell you. I mentioned it as a good starting point if s/he so cares to read further.
There is when you take $12 million from investors:
> A total of 161 investors had given Thompson $12.7m (£9.4m) to find the ship on the understanding that they would see returns on their investment.
Both the criminal and civil contempt arose from his refusal to abide court orders from the civil suit.[1]
[1] https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdoh/pr/treasure-hunter-sentenc...
If investors gave you $12.7 million to fund your expedition, you have an obligation to split the treasure as you promised.
For example, the UK Treasure Act:
The UK Merchant Shipping Act (applies to recovery from wrecks): The USA Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987, grants states title to wrecks in their waters.There's also the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) which applies to international waters.
[flagged]
Presumably everyone could have asked chatgpt.
Yes, but i gave my first answer myself.
And yes, this was easily google'able too.
Just like how everyone could have googled it. What’s your point?
Their point is that quoting chatgpt is a bad comment.
What's your point? It would be just as bad for someone to google a question and copy the first result snippet verbatim. So you've successfully brought up another bad way to comment.
I'm a scuba-diver and qualified marine archaelogist with a long-standing interest in archaeology and history.
I used Google to find suitable lay-descriptions/citations for the topics I already knew about (UK law on treasure and maritime law on salvage), and to understand more about applicable laws in the USA.
tehlike's neither showed any sort of authority nor did his reference of chatgpt. I would have preferred your comment.
If you don't believe what otherwise sounds reasonable take, I don't know what to tell you. I mentioned it as a good starting point if s/he so cares to read further.
Either way, feel free to down vote.
I misread the [flagged] as a reply to my message (and the subsequent comments as responses to a thread I was involved in).
Apologies for the out-of-context comment on this thread.