In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants (1913)

Record Details:

Title:
In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants
Date:
1913
Publisher:
New York, Appeal Printing Co.
Volume:
In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants : record volume 3
Leaf #:
00025
Language:
English
Collection:
Early Cinema and Government & Law
Format:
Periodicals
Contributor:
The Museum of Modern Art Library, New York
Sponsor:
Media History Digital Library
Coordinator:
Media History Digital Library
Description:
These seven volumes contain the testimonies and supporting documents from the U.S. District Court's antitrust lawsuit against the Motion Picture Patents Company (MPPC). Formed in 1908, the MPPC (sometimes referred to asœ"the Edison Trust" or just "the Trust") sought to control the American film industry through pooling patents and demanding that producers and exhibitors acquire licenses to those patents. Independent producers and exhibitors, who refused to license the patents, argued that the MPPC was an unlawful monopoly. In 1912 and 1913, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania heard testimonies from both MPPC members, such as Siegmund Lubin, and "Independents" who later became Hollywood moguls, such as William Fox. Ultimately, in 1915, the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which found the MPPC in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and spelled the end for the already weakening MPPC. -- Eric Hoyt, 2012
Date Added:
September 21, 2023
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.

H. N. Marvin, Direct Examination. 1251 scenario is a skeleton, or outlined story of a drama ar * ranged suitably for production in motion pictures. Q. As I understand it, a scenario does not differ essentially from an ordinary play so far as it exhibits the results? A. I should say that about the only difference between a scenario and an ordinary play is that a play contains lines that are to be spoken by the actors, whereas the motion picture scenario does not contain lines to be spoken by actors. It is necessary to arrange the story so as to produce it in pantomime in such a way that the story is told by the actors without the use of words. 9 Q. Isn't it true, as a matter of fact, that when actors give a play before a camera for the purpose of producing a motion picture that they do speak the lines to a large extent, not necessarily lines in the scenario, but do express themselves — verbally? A. That is quite customary to facilitate facial expression, and to enable the actors to produce pantomime more naturally, particularly in the cases of actors who have been accustomed to speak lines rather than to do pantomime work. Q. Are you familiar with the conditions of the license agreement entered into between the Motion Picture Pat 3 ents Company and the producers of motion pictures, on or about December 18th, 1908? A. I am. Q. Why does the license to produce motion pictures specify that subjects on films of more than one inch must be leased, while motion pictures on film of less than one inch, may be sold? Mr. Grosvenor: In answering that question I suppose the witness refers to the reasons and purposes that the framers of the license had in mind at the time it was adopted. 4 The Witness: There were several reasons that influenced the framers of the license agreement in introducing that provision. The owners of the patents involved in that agreement realized that the permanency and magnitude of their revenues would be derived from the exercise of the motion picture dramatic art through the medium of the appliances covered by their patents, and depended on the popularity of the motion picture drama, and upon its continued popularity with the public, who were the ones from