Year book of motion pictures (1925)

of kin of the deceased author may properly renew the copyright. Copyright A subsequent phase of the case of Goldwyn Pictures Corporation vs. Howells Sales Co., reported in the 1924 Year Hook, (282 Fed. 9), came before the court some months after that decision which was to the effect that since the Goldwyn company in that case was not the owner of the copyright relied upon it could not maintain an action for the infringement of that copyright. Later (292 Fed. 458), there was a motion in the same suit to substitute the owner of the copyright as the plaintiff instead pf the Goldwyn Pictures Corporation Te lower court denied the motion, but the Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the order, the Court saying: "I can see no reason for forcing upon Stephens the purely formal and vexatious obstacle of starting a new suit. When precedents permit, the law should rid itself of obstructive requirements which involve no substantial interest and only serve as hu-dles in the path of the parties who have suffered wrong.'' PROTECTING MOTION PICTURE TITLES F. G. Bradbury, an attorney of Los Angeles, contributed the following to The American Cinematographer for February: The willful pilfering of titles to motion pictures js too frequent to raise any doubt in the minds of producers of the urgent need of more effective methods of protection than have been practiced to date. The common understanding that a name of a picture cannot be protected because the "copyright" merely protects the subject matter and not the title. While it is a well established principle of law that the copyright does not protect the name, there is a phase of protection under the Trade Mark law which does protect and which by proper application will probably give the relief which is desirable. Property Right It has been established beyond a question of any doubt that there is in the name of a literary composition, play or picture, a certain property right and that as such, protection may be afforded against any infringement. Decisions Involved The trouble has been where an effort has beeu made to apply this principle, decisions are befogged by conditions and technicalities in each individual case, leaving the public in doubt as to what protection, if any, can be secured for the title. In the early production of motion picture:; it was common practice to hold up before the camera at intervals, the printed title of the picture or some cither distinctive mark, in an endeavor to protect the tit'e by the copyright which was subsequently secured. This proved ineffective and since abandon ment of this method, the appropriation of titles by those unauthorized to do so has become common. As fast as a big run picture is exhibited, there is an imitation of its title to be found "around the corner." sponging upon the popularity of the successful one. Century-Old Cases Scattered through court decisions dating as far back as 1825, titles to publications were held to be a species of property rights, bordering upon "trade marks" and as such are properly for use by an originator in trade to the exclusion of others. "Buster Brown" Case "Buster Brown," at the head of a single page of comic section of a newspaper was held to constitute a valid trade mark. Following this decision a case in which "L'Aiglon" involved the question of a trade mark as applied to a play was answered by injunctive relief to protect the use of the title. Strengthening the position that a motion picture title is the proper basis for "trade mark" protection, in a decision in the case in which "Nick Carter" was the title and character in a motion picture, it was held that the class of goods "motion pictures" offered for sale was entirely dissimilar from published stories by the same title and therefore not an infringement. Patent Office Recognition Following this, the I'nited States Patent Office has recently recognized title; as legitimate subject matter for trade marks as applied to motion pic tures by registering several trade marks of this class. That there is commercial property right in motion picture films is therefore unquestionable and the application of a name, symbol, phrase or other mark of distinction may be used as the basis for protecting a title used in connection with motion pictures. Trade Mark Law's Object It is the primary object of trade mark law to prevent one man from stealing away another's business and good will. Such is punishable by damages and will be enjoined by a court of equity. Course to Follow If a producer of a motion picture will promptly register his title as a trade mark in the United States Patent Office, he can secure to him-elf the right to such title to the exclusion of all others. The procedure for such registration is more burdensome and technical than the formality attending the registration of a copyright, the examination by the government being more critical and attended by a thorough search to determine before granting, the right of the applicant to registration. Publi cation in the Office Cazett is also conducted by the government, giving the public opportunity for opposing unfair registration before granting. Federal Court Action When finally granted the owner or proprietor has the right of action against all infringers in the Federal courts. A search of the government records made by an attorney especially familiar with such matters can be made to determine whether any question might arise as to the free use and appropriation of a desired title before adoption. After such search is made and the "title" found to be clear, application for registration should be filed and when registered the title should bear the notice "U. S. Trade Mark Registered." The expense of registration small as compared with the amount involved in most productions and it would seem evident that this measure of protection should appeal to producers. In a somewhat similar manner, registration of trade marks can be secured in nearly all foreign countries and here again protection of this character is desirable to prevent the unauthorized appropriation of the rightful owner's title. PENNA. DECISION ON CARNIVAL On June 3, Attorney General Woodruff of Pennsylvania ruled that carnival attractions that permit gambling and other kindred illegal practices are to be denied the financial aid of the state in the future. Picture men in general were elated at the issuance of this ruling, figuring that it will result in objectionable carnival companies being put out of business. K. C. EXHIBITORS LOSE MUSIC TAX CASE On June 6, after a long-awaited decision in a test music tax case against eight exhibitors, who were tried jointly with four music companies as plaintiffs. Judge Arba S. Van Valkenburgh in the Federal Court at Kansas City awarded damages and attorneys' fees in 12 decrees amounting to $4,200 against exhibitors. The decision followed the result of two years' work on the part of the theater men. The principal point at issue — the contention upon which Samuel A. Hardy, attorney for the exhibitors, hoped for victory — was not mentioned in the written decision of the court, thus leaving, according to Hardy, a hope for repeal. The plaintiffs were: Leo Feist, Inc., Jerome H. Remick and Co., Irving Berlin, and the Broadway Music Co. The defendants were: Gilham Amusement Co., the Gilham, Capitol Enterprises, the Gladstone; H. H. Barrett, the Colonial; A. K. Boussad. WorldMotion; Mrs. Lucy Weaver, the Mozart; Stockdale Bros., The Empire; A. M. Eisner, the Broad mour; T. T. Wilson, the Queens — all of Kansas City. 622