Broadcasting (Jan - Mar 1950)

scenes done by one or more of the ' actors who appeared in the original motion picture. In the case of such an exception in favor of television broadcasting, the footage available for television would probably be limited to short clips or trailers especially prepared and possibly re; quiring approval in advance by specified interested parties. Each transaction involving a grant of performing rights has to be examined carefully in the light of its own facts and circumstances in order to determine the true intent of the parties at each stop in the history of the rights. Naturally, in some cases this may become extremely complicated, but there are some general rules or principles which may be useful as guides. Through the years, as new media came into use, forerunners of our problems in television arose. Prior to the invention of motion pictures, for example, a dramatic performance right was a fairly simple and 1 unambiguous thing. There might have been some argument as to whether it covered performances in certain countries only, or with, out limitation throughout the world, j but there was no doubt that what j the parties had in mind was the \ presentation of the play by actors ii on a stage. I The advent of motion pictures \ introduced a new complication. In I an early case arising shortly after I the invention of motion pictures it was decided that a grant of dra' matic rights prior to the general \ use of motion pictures was deemed limited to pei'formances on the I stage. The owner of the basic I rights therefore was free to license someone else to make a motion picture version of the play and the ' licensee who had been given the dramatic rights was not able to i| make a motion picture version of it. Delay of Use Suggested However, at the same time it was recognized that it would be unfair to permit the owner of the basic rights to license the motion picture rights in such a way as to promote unfair competition by anyI one with the licensee of the stage I, rights. As a practical matter, I therefore, this required the motion j picture use to be delayed until such time as the normal run of the dramatic presentation on the stage was completed in the absence of a i: settlement between the motion picj ture producer and the owner of the |, stage rights. !) The next development was that I of combining sound with motion pictures. The question immediately was raised as to whether the licensee of motion picture rights had the right to make talking pictures as well as silent pictures. It ■ was decided in a representative case of this type that while a grant of screen rights in a play prior to the development of talking pictures did not carry the right to make talkmg pictures, it would be necessary for the producer of talking pictures to clear with and obtain the permission of the holder of the screen rights as well as the holder of the dramatic rights. The owner of the screen rights alone did not have the right to make talking motion pictures. At the same time the producer of the talking picture version had to secure permission from the licensee of the screen rights as well as the owner of the basic dramatic rights. It seems quite likely therefore that in many cases a grant of broadcasting rights prior to the general use of television would be deemed limited to aural broad■^asting, even though television is merely one form of broadcasting. It is likely that most courts faced with such a problem of interpretation would decide that what the parties had in mind was the system then in general use, namely, aural broadcasting or, in the popular sense, "radio and not television." This is not withstanding the fact that radio communication is defined in the Communications Act as the transmission by radio of pictures as well as sounds of all kinds. The industry is generally in the habit of distinguishing between "radio" on the one hand and "television" on the other — using the word "radio" as meaning sound only and leaving to the word "broadcasting" the overall meaning, covering both aural and visual transmissions intended for reception by the public generally, as opposed to point-to-point communication. In other words, there is a difference between television broadcasting and radio broadcasting. Does this surprise anyone in television ? An Example Let us take a particular case in which a sponsor wants to use drama on broadcaster's television network. Drama, by playwright, was copyrighted and published ten years ago after two years on Broadway. Publisher and play wright granted film rights to Hollywood. Playwright retained dramatic performing rights but granted Hollywood "broadcast" rights for promotion purposes. Agency deals with publisher, as well as playwright, because of publisher's specific interest in broadcasting rights under the publishing contract. The broadcast rights granted Hollywood are obviously limited to promotion of the picture and all seems clear until an agency executive points out that in order to reach the non-interconnected stations on the network kinescoping will be involved. Question: Does Hollywood, to which the film rights have been given, hold the key to the deal or may sponsor proceed under license from publisher and playwright only, regarding the kinescope film as merely incidental to the network operation? Answer: Study the film contract carefully with a good lawyer. THE BIG HIT AT THE TBA TELEVISION CLINIC New York, N. Y. February 8, 1950 Catalog of Bridges, Moods and Themes — Rave Notices! ! Another SESAC Service Tailored for TV AM FM A compact and comprehensive compilation of more than 1200 dramatic musical backgrounds of selections contained in the SESAC Transcription Library . . . saving you money and man hours . . . carefully checked and timed by program experts . . . complete with cross references and index. The new enlarged SESAC Transcribed Program Service of over 3500 standard selections for as low as $40 a month. SESAC, INC. 475 Fifth Avenue New York 17, N. Y. Page 67 • BROADCASTING February 13, 1950 TELECASTING • Page 17