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.

646 THE LAW OF MOTION PICTURES But where there was no mere license but an assignment, or a license which amounted in law to an assignment, the trustee became legally vested with title on the bankruptcy of such assignee or licensee, and could not be compelled to turn over the copyright to the assignor or licensor.6 Section 182. — Selling secondhand copies. In view of the practice of buying up old motion pictures and again distributing them, it is of interest to note that these second-hand copies even though copyrighted, may lawfully be touched up and restored as closely as possible to their original condition. The purchaser may also exhibit or cause the same to be exhibited. He may not, however, make copies of the film, as that would violate the rights of the copyright proprietor of such film. While there is no reported decision on this proposition directly involving motion pictures, the case of Doan v. Scribner (1896), 72 Fed. (C. C. A.) 988. So that a license under a patent right is held personal to the licensee and does not pass to a receiver or administrator by operation of law. Oliver v. Rumford Chem. Works (1883), 109 U. S. 75; 3 Sup. Ct. 61; Waterman v. Shipman (1893), 55 Fed. (C. C. A.) 982. Also Griffith v. Tower Pub. Co. (Eng.) (1897), 1 Chancery, 21, where the identical question was passed on, and the same .con clusion arrived at. Stevens v. Benning (Eng.) (1854), 1 Kay & Johnson, 168; aff’d 6 De G. M. & G. 223; Hole v. Bradbury (Eng.) (1879), 12 Chan. Div. 886; Reade v. Bentley (Eng.) (1858), 4 Kay & Johnson, 656. 6 In re Howley Dresser Co. (1904), 132 Fed. (D. C.) 1002. The copyright was held to go to the trustee in bankruptcy. “The question always is in such cases whether the agreement is merely an arrangement to publish under the copyright