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.
044
THE LAW OF MOTION PICTURES
exercise dominion thereto either by way of a sale or otherwise. But whether or not he is vested with title in the common-law rights of an unpublished work, is open to question.2
A sheriff, levying upon the copyrighted property and thereafter selling the same, does not sell the copyright, as that still remains in the judgment debtor, and he has
not been divested therefrom film is in fact a piratical copy will be uponvthe party making such claim.
8. If the film is held by the department to be a piratical copy, its seizure and forfeiture will be directed in accordance with section 32 of the copyright act, and the bond will be returned to the copyright proprietor, but if not so held, the collector will be directed to release the film and transmit the bond to the importer.
9. Regulations contained in T. D. 31754 of July 17, 1911, so far as they relate to moving picture films, are hereby modified accordingly.
James F. Curtis, Assistant Secretary.
!See: In re McDonnell (1900), 101 Fed. (D. C.) 239; Gillett v. Bate (1881), 86 X. Y. 87; In re Dann (1904), 129 Fed. (D. C.) 495.
3 Patterson v. Ogilvie Pub. Co. (1902), 119 Fed. (C. C.) 451.
3 All that the Sheriff sells Plaintiff, the author of a book, became financially embarrassed; a judgment was secured against him, and upon execution the sheets and plates of the book were levied on and sold by the sheriff. Defendant purchased the plates from some one to whom they had passed from the purchaser at the sheriff’s sale. The court said: —
“The copyright was not sold, and complainant has not lost his right to enforce it because he failed to prevent the sale of the plates. The^' were mere pieces of metal, which became the property of the purchaser, but gave him no right to publish the copyrighted work which could be printed from them. Complainant did not abandon his copyright by failing to buy them in, and is not estopped thereby from enforcing his statutory rights.”