Year book of motion pictures (1925)

Legal Decisions of Importance NATHAN BURKAN Sonic very interesting decisions have come down this year affecting motion pictures and copyright There has also been an attempt to legislate with respect to the Copyright Act. A few of the decisions that will interest the motion picture industry are the following: The "Ten Commandments" Case The Famous Players1. asky Corporation having expended over a million dollars upon its production of "The Ten Commandments" was faced with a serious problem early in the year when the Weiss Brothers, operating the Artclass Pictures Corporation, released their picture under the title. "After Six Days, featuring Moses and The Ten Comandments," the phrase "Moses and The Ten Commandments." being in particularly large and conspicuous type. Tt seems that the Weiss Brothers had purchased a 52 reel Italian film representing the stories of the Bible, and after the great ponu larity of "The Ten Commandments." they had cut their picture, which had been intended for non-theatrical use only, to a seven reel length, and distributed the same for theatrical purposes under that title. The title had originally been "The. Holy Bible," and had been changed a number of times, until it approximated very closely the title of the Famous Players' picture. Suit was brought to restrain the use of this title and the exhibition of the film under the title and the matter was referred to Robert L. Bruce, Esq., Refe-ee, who held protracted hearings and took a great quantity of testimony. He finally decided that the Famous Players was entitled to an injunction as well as damages, and he enjoined the Weiss Brothers from exhibiting their film under the infringing title. The decision is of importance, not only because of the large investment invo'ved. but because the Judge laid down the rule unequivocally, fliat the Famous Players, in order to win. did not have to show that they had an exclusive rightl to appropriate the words, "The Ten Commandments" for their title Even admitting that that was not a title that could be monopolized, nevertheless. Judge Luce held that the defendants could not use the title, because their title was calculated to deceive the public. In other words, the plamtiff did not have to have a trade-mark or trade-name; it was enough if unfair competition was shown. While that rule is an old rule, there has been much confusion in the law with respect to its application, and Judge Luce did a great deal in his decision to clarify the rule. The result of this decision should be beneficial to the industry, as it make it so much easier to reach an infringer. The Henry King Case In August, the Inspiration Pictures, Inc. commenced an action against the well-know motion picture director, Henrv King, claiming that he was under contract with the corporation to make eight additional pictures, and that in violation of his contract, he had declined to render further services. An injunction was prayed for, restraining him from rendering his services to any other person or .firm, and a preliminary restraining order was granted Samuel Untermyer, Esq., represented the Insniration Pictures, Inc., and we represented Mr. King. . . Before the motion for temporary injunction came on, we obtained an order to take the depositions of various witnesses for use on the motion, and a most unusual situation was disclosed. It appears that the Inspiration Pictures. Inc. made a contract with Charles H. Duell and Walter Camp, Jr.. holding the majority of its stock, en July 3. 1924. under which it was agreed that the 'corporation would be liquidated ami dissolved no later than October 1. 1924, and that certain of its assets would be turned over to Mr. Duell and other assets would lie turned over to Mr. Camp 1 1 was also agreed that Mr. Duell would form a new corporation entitled "Charles H. Duell, Inc." which would produce pictures, and that another corporation to be known as "Inpiration Pictures, Inc." (the identical name of the old company) would be founed which would continue to operate with the assets taken over by Mr. Camp. Mr. King raised the point that inasmuch as the law of New York provides that the formation of a new corporation to take over the assets of an old corporation and to continue under its name automatically dissolves the old company, there was, therefore, no corporation any longer in existence to hold Mr. King to any alleged contract. A contract for services being pecularialy a personal contract. King could not be "farmed out'' from one corporation to another, without the consent of the employee. The motion for temporary injunction came on to be heard, and aside from King's defense on the merits — he claiming that he was under no contract with Inspiration Pictures, Inc. — the point was made that in any event, the old company had been dissolved and had gone out of existence. The Judge seemed to take the point under advisement, ior he denied the motion for temporary injunction and vacated the preliminary restraining order, on the ground that the right of the plaintiff to maintain the suit was too doubtful. The importance of this decision is that the courts recognize that a contract of employment is a personal cont-act ; that when a corporation contracts for a man's services, it cannot be satisfied with a substitute, and the employee does not have to be satisfied with a substitute and accept some other corporation : that each has the right to look to, and expect that the other contracting party will remain in existence to carry out the contract, and when anythine happens that deprives either of the parties of that benefit, then the contract terminates. While the case has not been tned on the merits, there is no doubt that the final decision will follow this rule. The Jose Ruben Case Jose Ruben was employed by the International Film Service Co.. Inc. for its picture, "When Knighthood Was in Flower," under a written contract of employment. The studio had been prepared, the actors were on the scene at 9:30 in the morning in costume readyto work, and the director was on hand ready to shoot scenes, but Mr. Ruben did" not make his anpea-ance. He appeared about twelve o'clock, claiming that he had sustained an injury to his eye and was compelled to obtain the services of a physician that morning. He was directed to anpear in a scene that da> , but at the end of the day, he was discharged. The employer, claiming that it had the right to discharge Ruben, because it had lost a large sum of money by reason of the delay caused by his absence that morning. .Mr. Ruben thereupon brought an action for breach of contract, claiming his salary for the balance of the term. Judge Walsh of the City Court decided that Ruben was entitled to recover and he held that whatever right the International had to discharge had been waived by keeping Ruben for the balance of the day. The international made the point that it was its duty to keep him for the balance of the day in order to minimize its loss as much as possible, but that contention was brushed aside. The interesting point involved in this case is what absence from duty is sufficient to constitute a breach of the contract and give the other party the right to rescind. The point has not been squarely passed upon in this case, but the lawseems to be that the duration of the absence does not have to be fixed and that each case depends upon its own circumstances and that if from the peculiar nature of the business, the absence sufficient to cause great hardship and loss, then the rb'ht to discharge accrues to the injured party. 614