Motion Picture News (Jul - Sep 1930)

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.

24 Motion Picture News July 5, 1930 Exchanges Want L. A. Zoning Plan And Exhibs Say NO!! So Exhibs Win Second Milwaukee Deadlock Halts Action Until Third Meeting Milwaukee — Unless exchangemen and exhibitors in this territory work more harmoniously, Milwaukee will be without a new zoning plan indefinitely. Exchanges favor the Los Angeles plan and the exhibs won't swallow it, so the matter stands just where it did before they got together to thrash out the problem. After a three-day pow-wow ten days ago, the discussion was set aside until Monday, when it was hoped something tangible would develop. Continued differences of opinion as to what system should be followed caused another split and a second adjournment was called until July 7. The exchange and theatre representatives are expected to work out a zoning plan for the entire state, which, to date, has not been zoned. The big kicks emanate from the ranks of Milwaukee showmen with majority of state exhibitors standing quietly on the sidelines. Under the present arrangement, play dates of second runs in the various zones are antied out according to admissions. One of the chains, however, is slipping in playdates at its neighborhood stands ahead of the independents in the same zone who charge higher prices. Consequently, the rumpus. Meyer Quits Universal To Join Skouras' Dept. Milwaukee — Fred S. Meyer has left Universal and Milwaukee to accept an executive post in the Warner theatre department under Spyros Skouras. He has been in charge of the Laemmle theatre activities in this state for four years. He joined the Laemmle Film Co. as salesman in 1910, staying with Universal until 1919, serving as theatre and exchange manager in Chicago, Minneapolis and Milwaukee. He operated a theatre in Hamilton, O., until 1926, when he again joined Universal. Bernard J. Depkin has been placed in charge of Warner activities in Wisconsin, including erection of its new downtown theatre here. The circuit has recently acquired two more independent neighborhood houses in Milwaukee, including the Egyptian and Granada, located on the north and south side of the city respectively, giving them nine in Milwaukee. Local theatremen tendered Meyer a farewell party prior to his departure. Debate on Copyright Bill By House is Postponed Washington — No further action on the Vestal bill (H.R. 12549) to amend and consolidate the copyright bill will be taken until "a later date," the debate in the House having been postponed indefinitely. The measure would also allow the United States to enter the International Copyright Union. Sol Scores a Knockout Old man Sol again downs the mighty Hip for the count! New York's Hippodrome, a house with one of the most colorful careers in theatrical history — old and new — again finds it too hard to buck the sweltering heat. The house, seating 5,500, darkens on July 12 for the summer. When it opens early in the fall, RKO will stage one of the longest bills in the country: eight vaude acts, shorts and a feature. Hot Squabble Over Edison's Inventive Genius (Continued from page 22) which appeal's in the Scientific American Supplement, No. 746, April 19, 1890, also embodies every characteristic and essential principle of the modern motion picture camera. It may be mentioned here that Edison did not apply for his kinetographic camera patent until 1891. "Nonetheless, as Dyer states, he may have 'reduced to practice' his 'complete invention' as early as 1889, waiting the two years permitted by the patent laws before making his application. "The affidavit of Friese-Greene, a part of the court records in the case of the Motion Picture Patents Company vs. The Yankee Film Company et al., in equity, brought in the year 1910, is interesting in this connection, and has never been contradicted. Friese-Greene's Affidavit "The full affidavit appears in the Dec. 3, 1910. issue of Moving Picture News, the predecessor of Motion Picture News, on Pages 11, 12, 13 and 18, Vol. III. No. 49. Friese-Greene had come to America to testify in the struggle of the independents against the trust and his affidavit is a part of the permanent record of the court. "Following is a brief quotation from his affidavit: " 'When I had completed my 1889 camera and found the high degree of effectiveness and efficiency that was attainable by means of a long length of celluloid film, I again took up the idea of combining the projection of moving pictures with the accompaniment of a phonographic reproduction of suitable song or speech. I had had an Edison phonograph since 1887, as I have stated, and from such information as I was able then to gather, learned that great improvements had been _ made in the development of the phonograph, and it occurred to me that I would write Mr. Edison, advising him of the work I had done in the reproduction of moving pictures and describe the capacity of my camera in conjunction with a long length of celluloid film, and suggest to him the working out of a combination of his invention of the phonograph in conjunction with my invention of the animated picture camera and projector. " 'Immediately, after turning over to my patent agents for filing, my patent application, which was filed by them in the British Patent Office, June 21, 1889, I wrote to Mr. Edison giving him a full description of my camera and projector and their details of construction. I am positive that this letter was mailed to Mr. Edison before July 1, 1889, and to the best of mv recollection it was mailed at least a week or ten days before that date. . . .' "Friese-Greene goes into many details of his camera's construction, as he disclosed it to Edison, and continues: _ , " 'In replv to this communication I received from Mr. Edison's laboratory or works a letter of acknowledgment, which I shall produce in court. . . . requested that T send full drawings of mv carema This letteretabin shrdlu etaoin shrdlu shrdl etaoin I,, Edison. Pursuant to tin request in this letter contained T vent to Mr. Edison by mail within a few davs of the date of its receipt a set of working drawings of the camera, these drawings being substantially identical with the drawings shown in mv British patent, Xo. 10.131 of 1889. . . "I think that this about disposes of the statement that Edison was 'the first to suggest the principles involved in the modern motion picture camera.' The records apparently give him no better than thirdplace, and even this is by no means certain. "Dyer makes light of the decision I refered to, written by Tudge Wallace, from which I shall hereafter quote! in expressing the unanimous opinion of the tT S. Circuit Court of Appeals (see Federal Reporter. No. 114. 1902, pages 926 to 939, Edison vs. American Mutoscope Co.) in denying to Edison all claims for originality or priority of invention on his camera patent. "This decision was never appealed and the 'reissue patent' referred to by Dyer was little more than a 'design' patent, affecting no principle in the art. I do not believe it was ever adjudicated, although if Dyer can enlighten me on this point I shall appreciate it, as a matter of historic record. "It was only one of the numerous patents put in the pool formed later by the Motion Picture Patents Co., in an effort to monopolize the youthful film industry. As such, it doubtless figured in many of the actions brought by the 'trust' to eliminate the independents, and also, as such, doubtless many weakkneed individuals and companies 'paid a tribute thereunder to Edison in royalties' as Dyer avers. But not quite as late as 1914. "The opinion of Judge Wallace, concurred in by Judges Townsend and Lacombe sitting with him, Dyer to the contrary, notwithstanding, constitutes the whole official and authentic record of Edison's contribution to the motion picture, as far as invention is concerned. "The following excerpt from Judge Wallace's historic decision will be sufficient for the purposes of replying to Dyer: (Extra Judge Wallace's decision, Edison vs. American Mutoscope Co., Federal Reporter, 114, 1902, Page 934) : " 'It is obvious that Mr. Edison was not a pioneer, in the large sense of the term, or in the more limited sense in which he would have been had he also invented the film. He was not the inventor of the film. He was not the first inventor of apparatus capable of reproducing suitable negatives, taken from practically a single point of view, in single line sequence upon a film like his, and embodying the same general means of rotating drums and shutters for bringing the sensitized surface across the lens, and exposing successive portions of it in rapid succession. " 'DuCos anticipated him in thiSj notwithstanding he did not use the film. Neither was he the first inventor of apparatus capable of producing suitable negatives, and embodying a means for passing a sensitized surface across a single-lens camera at a high rate of speed, and with an intermittent motion, and for exposing successive portions of the surfaces during the periods of rest. " 'His claim for such an apparatus was rejected by the Patent Office and he acquiesced in its rejection. He was anticipated in this by Marey, and Marey also anticipated him in photographing successive positions of the object in motion from the same point of view. . . .' "To Edison must go the credit for perfecting the details of apparatus especially adapted for the employment of the film, as we know it today, but to do this, as Judge Wallace states, 'required but a moderate amount of mechanical ingenuity.' It was not invention. Also Edison by utilizing this film and perfecting the apparatus for using it, met all the conditions necessary for commercial success. But this again did not entitle him to a monopoly of all camera apparatus utilizing the film or to the credit and protection afforded the pioneer inventor. "Edison's kinetoscope, undoubtedly, inspired many other inventors to contribute to the art, Lumiere, Paul and others, but it contributed no new principle to cinematic science. "It certainly does not entitle him to be described in cinematographic history as the 'inventor of the motion picture.' West Readying "The Bat Whispers" for U. A. Hollywood — Roland West's second talker production for United Artists, "The Bat Whispers," «;oes into rehearsals next week witli Chester Morris in the featured role. Cast members selected to date include Una Merkel, Gustav von Seyffertitz, Ben Bard, Grace Hampton. Spencer Charters, Charles Dow Clark and Maude Eburne. "The Bat Whispers" is Roland West's adaptation of the recent Broadway play. "Whispers."