Year book of motion pictures (1925)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

had acquired which rendered them valueless to him. '1 hereupon Glucksman sued the defendants for damages in maliciously interfering with his contractual rights and relations with Select. It appeared in the proof, however, thai the defendants when apprised of what had occurred made substantial efforts to correct the mistake. They instructed the Guaranty Trust Co. through whom the documents were forwarded to the bank in South America to cable the latter to deliver the shipment to Glucksman. They also requested the agents of the steamer upon which shipment had been made to make the delivery of the shipment to the plaintiff instead of to the assignee, and in other respects did what they could to further the plaintiff's future interests. The Court held that the test of the defend ant's liability in an action of this kind is whether the defendants after knowledge of the plaintiff's righN hail maliciously endeavored to injure the plaintiff by violating those rights The Court held that the evidence did not disclos such a case at'd reversed the judgment obtained by the plaintiff for this reason and for errors in the Court's charge to the jury. Employers' Liability In Madderns vs. Fox Film Corp (205 A D "91, J une, 1923), the plaintiff who was an actor employed by the Fox Film Corn, was injured while engaged in making a motion 'picture. While the plaintiff was being chased along the edge of a boat which was tied to a pier in Jersey City, he tripped over another man and fell into the icy waier of the Hudson River and as a result contracted tuberculosis from wdiich he was suffering at the time of the award. The State Industrial Board made an award of compensation to the claimant and the Fox Film Corporation, appealed from the ruling. The chief question considered was whether t Incase was within the jurisdiction of the State Industrial Hoard or whether it fell witnin the admiralty jurisdiction It appeared that the defendant was engaged in the production of motion pictures chiefly on land and was not engaged in any maritime employment that the presence of the claimant on the boat was a mere incident of his emplovment contracted for and primarily carried on within the state of New York and that there was no proof that the employer *as the owner or operator of the boat or in any way engaged in aiding the boat in the performance of her mission as a boat. Upon these facts the court held that the injuries were not caused by a maritime wrong exclusively within the admiralty jurisdiction, that the State Industrial Board had jurisdiction and that there was evidence to sustain its findings in consequence of which it affirmed the award. Copyrights and Literary Property In the copyright and literary property field several important cases were decided during the year or last year too late for mention in last year s Year Book. In Fox Film Corporation vs. Knowles (261 L. S. 326) the Fox Film Corporation sought to restrain dramatic performances based upon two poems. "Over the Hills to the Poor House" and Over the Hills from the Poor House," and for an accounting and for damages. The author of the poems. Will Carleton, held a renewed copyright for them which expired about February 21 1915. He died on December 18, 1912 leaving all of his property to Norman E. Goodrich and appointing him sole executor. On January 21. 1915, the Executor applied for and obtained a renewal' of the copyright to February 21, 1929. Eater the exclusive right to dramatize the noems was assigned to the plaintiff. The only defense relied upon was that under the copyright statutes the right of renewal did not vest in the executor and that therefore the copyright had expired and was available for the defendant's use. The District Court dismissed the plaintiff's com plaint upon this ground and the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. The Supreme Court of the United States reversed these decisions, however, and held that the executor might renew the copyright within the year prior to the expiration even though the author died before its commencement so that the right to file application had not accrued in the author's lifetime and that the statute intends that an executor, there being no widow, widower or child, shall have the same rights as his testator might have exercised had he continued to survive. Breach of Contract — Literary Property Rights In Packard vs. Fox Film Corp. (207 A. D. 311) the complaint alleged that plaintiff Frank L. Packard was the author and owner of a story known as "The Tron Rider." The first cause of the convlaint was that plaintiff soM the exclusive motion pictures rights in the story to the defendants and authorized the production of a motion picture version thereof and authorized the use of plaintiff's name in connection therewith; that defendant thereafter released a photoplay under tin'* title and i laiutiff was represented as its author but the picture was in no way taken from the story hut was based upon an entirely different story separate and from and in no way connected with the plaintiff's story and that the use of plaintiff's name in connection therewith was false and misleading and an unlawful use of plaintiff'.; name and that the use of the title "The $roin Rid"'." in connection with a story other than that of which the nlaintiff was the author was also unauthorized. The plaintiff claimed $25,000 damages for the unauthorized use of his name as au.hor of the story he did not write and $25,000 lor the unauthorized use of the title "The, Iron Rider" in connection with the picture based upon a story which was not "The Iron Rider." The defendant claimed that two causes of action had been improperly joined in this charge but the court held otherwise and sustained this part of the complaint, saying: "The law is well settled that the author of a literary work possesses a property right therein and that such property right is subject to purchase and sale the same as any other personal property and is subject to the same rules as govern the sale of any other form of personal property. Whatever rights the defendant acquired to use said story and in connection therewith were limited by the terms of the contract and when defendant exceeded the rights thus acquired and used plaintiff's name in connection with an entirely different story, defendant was appropriating something which it had not purchased of the plaintiff and for which it had given the plaintiff no value." The second cause of action alleged that the plaintiff had sold the defendant the picture rights in the story "The Iron Rider" of which he was the author but that defendant produced a picture based and founded upon the plaintiff's story but entitled it "Smiles Are Trumps" using the plaintiff's name as its originator and author. The lower court was of the opinion that the second cause of action was not good for the supposed reason that the defendant was not obligated to give the motion picture the same name as the story because the agreement did not specifically so provide, but the Appellate Division reversed this part of the decision of the lower court, saying : "We are unable to see the force of such reasoning. By its contract with the plaintiff the defendant acquired the right to make a motion picture based upon the plaintiff's story under the title "The Tron Rider" and in connection therewith to advertise the same by by the use of the plaintiff's name. The un authorized use of plaintiff's name in connection with a story of a different title was a distinct damage to the plaintiff." Copyright Renewal In Silverman vs Sunrise Pictures Corporation. (290 Fed. 804). the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that under the Copyright Act of Ma ch 4, 1909 when the time for renewal of a copyright arises and there is no executor and no surviving husband or wife and no child, the next 621