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.
30
THE LAW OF MOTION PICTURES
In another case where the contract provided that one who was engaged at a specified compensation should,
Theatre, as long as the plays would run there, and receive half the profits, as a compensation. This cannot be construed into a contract conferring upon Stuart, or anyone else, the legal or equitable title to this drama. The title to literary property is in the author whose intellect has given birth to the thoughts and wrought them into a composition, unless he has transferred that title, by contract, to another. In the present case no such contract is proved. The most that could possibly be said, in regard to the right of Stewart, or his trustee, in the play, is, that the arrangement entitled them to have it performed at the Winter Garden as long as it would run. There is not the slightest foundation upon which they, or either of them, can rest a claim to the literary property in the manuscript. That property was in the plaintiff, subject, at most, to a license or privilege in favor of Stewart & Fields, to have the piece performed at the Winter Garden. Whether the plaintiff was guilty of a breach of that part of his agreement which bound him to bestow his own and his wife’s
services, we need not inquire here. Such a breach if proved, would not vest the proprietors of the theatre with the title to ‘ The Octoroon.’ A man’s intellectual productions are peculiarly his own, and although they may have been brought forth by the author while in the general employment of another, yet he will not be deemed to have parted with his right and transferred it to his employer, unless a valid agreement to that effect is adduced.”
In Roberts v. Myers (1860), 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,906 (C. C.), it was held that where an author had contracted with the proprietor of a theatre to write a play to be performed at the latter’s theatre, the author was the owner of the copyright.
“By this agreement Stewart (proprietor) acquired no right or interest in the play to be written, except the privilege of having it performed at his theatre. All other rights were retained by the author.”
In Eaton v. Lake (Eng.) (1888), 59 L. T. 100; 57 L. J. (Q. B.) 227, a music conductor, while in the employ of defendant for a term of years, had composed special music for the Christmas holidays,