Year book of motion pictures (1937)

COMMENT The Court held that plaintiff's rights were clear under the 1923 agreement and he was therefor entitled to the remedies as exclusive licensee, to wit, an accounting and an injunction. The Court said that in this accounting the value placed by the plaintiff upon its rights in uncompleted negotiations was wholly immaterial and that if the plaintiff's right was clear a preliminary injunction would be granted. It said that the producers acted with their eyes open, were warned before they began production and the suit was promptly started and that while it might be that they believed Mrs. Richards had the better title they dealt with the wrong party at their own risk. The case was subsequently settled out of court. Playwright Against Producer — Plagiarism — Test of Copyright Infringement Afheson v. Mctro-Goldivyn-Maycr Corporation, et al* A playwright sued for an accounting and damages claiming that the defendants' motion picture, "Riptide," infringed on his copyrighted play, "The Penalty of Sex." He contended that the producers had plagiarized the central theme of his play by portraying the "woman tempted" and used identical words. The Court dismissed the complaint and said : "The story of the 'woman tempted' can be traced back to the story of Eve. . . . The alleged identical words, in any event, constitute a highly insubstantial portion of each play." It said 5 that the Copyright Law "is made for plain people; . . . copying which is infringement must be something 'which ordinary observation 0 would cause to be recognized as having been taken from' the work of another . . ." Novelist v. Producer — Copyright Infringement In Barry v. Hughes, et «/.7 Barry, a novelist, sued the producer of "Hell's Angels," claiming that the film infringed the copyrights in his stories. The producer in defense asserted the source of the alleged infringement scenes was a oneact play entitled "Somewhere in Mexico," written by one McKay. The novelist did not refute this but contended that the playwas copied from his story. McKay stated by deposition (during which he was cross-examined) that he had never read Barry's stories or the magazines in which they were published and that the sole inspiration of the play was a story told him in 1915 by a Colonel in Cuba concerning an incident which occurred during the Cuban insurrection. His testimony was corroborated by others. The Court dismissed the complaint and said : "Though not free from doubt,8 the court concludes that plaintiff has not met the burden of proving that McKay copied any part of the play which was the source of defendant's picture from plaintiff's copyrighted story." Playwright v. Producer — Access — Appropriation Echevorria v.. Warner Bros. Pictures, et al." The Court granted the. producer's motion for a non-suit on the grounds that no access to the plaintiff's synopsis had been shown and that comparison of the synopsis with the photoplay showed no appropriation or similarity. COMMENT In Warner Bros. Pictures v. Cosgrave™ the Circuit Court of Appeals vacated an order impounding the films. Copyright Infringement Suit — Service of Summons on Branch Manager Tuttle v. Metro-Goldivyn Pictures Corporation, et al.n A resident of Cincinnati, Ohio, filed suit there in Federal Court against Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corporation, Metro-GoldwynMayer Corporation and others, asking for an injunction and an accounting. She claimed that the Metro picture, "Animal Kingdom," infringed upon the copyrightable matter in her book, "Kingdom of the World." Summons was served upon the resident manager of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Distributing Corporation at Cincinnati. The Court set aside the service pointing out that Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Corporation, the producing company, and MetroGoldwyn Pictures Corporation which owned all of the stock of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Distributing Corporation did no business in Ohio. COMMENT Copyright suits may be instituted in the district where the defendant or his agent resides or may be found.12 The Court held that the Distributing Company and its Cincinnati branch manager were not such agents. Producer v. Infringer — False Accounting — Allowance to Attorneys Flcisher Studios, et al. v. Freundlich, et al.'3 A doll manufacturer infringed the plaintiff's cartoon character "Betty Boop." An accounting was ordered." The special master awarded to plaintiff the sum of $5,540 ($5 for each of the 1,108 dolls found in the manufacturer's possession) and a fee of $15,000 for plaintiff's attorneys. The awards were approved by the Court. COMMENT The Court justified the award and fees because the false account filed by the defendants made it impossible to find more infringing dolls and necessitated justifiable work by the attorneys to break the account down. There is an interesting inference in the opinion that a false accounting in a copyright suit brought to the attention of the Court before the accounting is closed may be punishable as a contempt of court. 737