The law of motion pictures (1918)

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.

10 THE LAW OF MOTION PICTURES The decision in that case is based upon the theory of unfair competition. Where all the elements of unfair competition exist, it would be only reasonable to assume that it makes no difference which is first granted and produced — the motion picture or the play. Since they are both in the same class, the production of each being a dramatic performance, the courts must protect him who was first given the grant and who first produced the work. Because I own a play and sell you the motion picture rights, I have no right thereafter to exploit my play to the detriment of your rights. To avoid that situation, the author or proprietor of the play may provide hi his contract with the motion picture producer that he expressly reserves to himself or his assigns, during the period of the motion picture grant, the right to perform the play with living actors upon the stage. Then again, we may be confronted with a case wherein the proprietor of a successful and well-known play, after its performance on the stage for several years, finally grants an exclusive license for its reproduction in motion pictures. May he then, during the term of such grant, continue to perform his play with living actors upon the stage? Here, a contrary situation is disclosed. The proprietor of the play was the first user of the property — the proprietor of the motion picture rights, the second user. The latter knows of the prior user. He makes his bargain with that in mind. If he washes to have the exploitation of the play upon the stage suspended during the period of his license, he should not only bargain for the motion