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.
WHERE BASED UPON A NOVEL OR HISTORICAL WORK 13
for him to file an instrument in the copyright office setting forth the fact that the copyright is held by his publisher as a trustee merely, subject to specified limitations. Anything which would put the prospective purchaser of the motion picture rights upon inquiry would probably be sufficient.
The author, by failing to have some notation made in the copyright office of his rights against the publisher, does not, however, lose his remedies against the publisher for the breach of the trust. The registration of the copyright in the name of the assignee (publisher) does not confer the dramatic rights upon the assignee where they had been retained by the author. Under such an arrangement the assignor (author) becomes the proprietor of the dramatic rights secured by the copyright in the name of the publisher.16
There arises the query, where motion pictures are produced by assignees both of the author who originally retained the right, and of the third party who purchased the rights from the publisher, as to who may enjoin, if at all, the exhibition of the motion picture of the other. It would seem to follow, from a reading of Judge Mayer’s
16 Ford v. Blaney Amusement Co. (1906), 148 Fed. (C. C.) 642: The work was published in a magazine which was copyrighted by the magazine proprietor. It was held that by selling his right to copyright but reserving to himself the dramatization rights, the work was copyrighted by the copyrighting
of the magazine and that the dramatization rights remained in the author. See also: Mifflin v. White (1903), 190 U. S. 260; 23 Sup. Ct. 769; Mifflin v. Dutton (1903), 190 U. S. 265; 23 Sup. Ct. 771; Holmes v. Hurst (1899), 174 U. S. 82; 19 Sup. Ct. 606; Dam v. Kirk La Shelle (1910), 175 Fed. (C. C. A.) 902.