The law of motion pictures (1918)

648 THE LAW OF MOTION PICTURES Where a secondhand motion picture projecting machine was sold, no false representations as to its origin being made, it was held that such sale was lawful under the original name of the machine.9 Section 183. — Taxability. Copyright may not be taxed. It is a species of intangible property which is exempt from taxation; for to tax it would be to impose a check upon that which is avowedly sought to be encouraged.10 off as new, it was held to be unfair competition in: Doan v. American Book Co. (1901), 105 Fed. (C. C. A.) 772; Bureau of NaVl Literature v. Sells (1914), 211 Fed. (D. C.) 379; Ginn v. Apollo (1914), 215 Fed. (D. C.) 772; Kipling v. Putnam (1903), 120 Fed. (C. C. A.) 631. 9 Vitascope Co. v. U. S. Phonograph Co. (1897), 83 Fed. (C. C.) 30. Where plaintiff had contracted with Edison for the manufacture by the latter of certain motion picture machines and after his failure to pay for some of them, Edison sold them to a third party under the name which had been given them “Edison Vitascopes,” plaintiff could not enjoin the third party from offering them for sale under that name, as that was their name, and no false representation was made to the public. It is to be noted that no right to the use of the name had been shown to vest exclusively in the plaintiff. 10 People ex rel. Johnson v. Roberts (1899), 159 N. Y. 701; 53 N. E. 685. The same rule with respect to patent rights is laid down in People ex rel. Edison v. Assessors (1898), 156 N. Y. 417; 51 N. E. 269. People ex rel. United States Aluminum Co. v. Knight (1903), 174 N. Y. 475; 67 N. E. 65. A corporation may be taxed by the state even though its property consists of exempt letters patent, bonds or copyrights. “. . . . But they involve the principle that while a tax cannot be assessed upon property that is exempt by Act of Congress, it may be imposed upon the franchise of a corporation to which such exempt property belongs