Brief for the United States (1914)

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.

192 PART IX. though he would have liked to do so. This exclusion applied to the Kinemacolor pictures. (II, 700, fol. 1.) Although the Greater New York Film Eental Co. obtained films from the manufacturers after the revocation of the cancellation of its license, the service given by the manufacturers was discriminatory and in favor of the General Film Co., its competitor. The manufacturers made the General Film Co. their exclusive agent in the distribution of all special features, which are pictures outside of the regular releases and of a character particularly desired by exhibitors. (Rosenbluh, I, 372375; 469-470.) J. C. GRAHAM, manager of the Western Film Exchange and stockholder of that company and the O. T. Crawford Film Exchange, both located at St. Louis, licensed by the Patents Co. up to the summer of 1910. (II, 1226, et seq.) On the morning of July 20 each company received a night-letter telegram, dated July 19, stating : We have canceled your license for using licensed film in violation of the terms of your license ag]*eement with us. (II, 1227, fol. 1 ; 1228, fol. 2.) Neither company was afforded any hearing on the qu(*stion whether it had A-iolated the terms of the license (II, 1237, fol. 4), although each company had to the best of its ability lived up to the