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.

16 THE LAW OF MOTION PICTURES to a motion picture producer are the same as those which arise between a novelist and motion picture producer.19 It is customary for the publisher of a periodical or newspaper to copyright the entire work in his own name. If he has been authorized by the author or proprietor of the work to secure copyright, but the rights granted to him are solely that of publication of the work, the magazine or newspaper proprietor holds the copyright as trustee for the author or proprietor of the work.20 19 Section 2. 20 Ford v. Blaney (1906), 148 Fed. (C. C.) 642: “I think, under this provision (referring to Section 4952 of the U. S. Revised Statutes) it is not necessary that the author himself should have taken out the copyright of a book, in order to preserve the right of dramatizing it, but that the author can sell the copyright of the book to a person, who, as proprietor, can take out the copyright, while the author, at the same time, retains the right of dramatization. If a copyright of a book has been obtained by anybody entitled by law to obtain it, I think that the author of the book or his assigns, a term which as used in Section 4952 , means in my opinion an assignee of the right of dramatization, has the exclusive right to dramatize the work, if he reserved the right to dramatize upon the sale of the book, which is alleged in the complaint in this case. The object of the statute seems to have been to provide that the author’s right of dramatization of a book shall not be protected unless the book be copyrighted; but I do not see anything in the statute which requires that the author shall take old the copyright of the book.” In Drone on Copyright, at page 260: “A person who is not the author or owner of a work may take out the copyright in his own name, and hold it in trust for the rightful owner. Thus, when an article has first been published in a cyclopaedia, magazine, or any other publication, the legal title to the copyright, if taken out in the name of the publisher, will vest in him. But it may be the property of the author, and held in trust for him. And the same is true when