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.
218 PAET IX.
Kiliemacolor pictures in their houses or houses which were running licensed films. We have offered to supply them the service, and in a great many cases they have ^vritten us and advised us that they could not put in Kinemacolor, as it was not licensed, and that they had been forbidden to show the pictures in connection with their licensed film. Mr. William Fox testified, February 13, 1913 (II, 699, fol. 1) :
Ninety-five per cent of the large theaters in Greater New York are licensed by the Motion Picture Patents Company. I say ninety-five per cent in view of the fact that I do not know of more than one place where unlicensed pictures are shoA\Ti at the present time in a large theater.
The same thing is true in Newark, N. J., Springfield, Mass., New Haven, Conn., and Bridgeport, Conn., where I have theaters. (II, 699, fol. 2.)
I should take much pleasure in exhibiting Kinemacolor pictures to the patrons of my theaters, but I am not able to do it unless I am willing to violate the license agreement with the Motion Picture Patents Company, and therefore I am unable to show it. (II, 699, fol. 4, 700, fol. 1.)
See also Rosenbluh, I, 363, fol. 2.
The contract with the Eastman Kodak Co. was one of the means employed by which it was expected and intended to monopolize the business, for the Kastman Co. was the only manufactui-er in the United States at that time making suitable film for the use of motion pictures. (Marvin, I, 25,