Harrison's Reports (1948)

68 HARRISON'S REPORTS April 24, 1948 will benefit if he plugs his opposition's picture*, or if he whets the appetites of his own patrons for pictures that may eventually be offered to him at exorbitant rentals. Part of the TOA's campaign for better public relations includes cooperation with the National Conference on Prevention and Control of Juvenile Delinquency, which is indeed a worthy cause, and which should bring much credit to the industry. But just how the rest of its campaign will tie in with MPAA's has not yet been clearly defined. Since it is a known fact that the TOA derives it main support from the affiliated theatres, the developments, insofar as industry politics are concerned, will be interesting to watch. There is only one way by which cooperation among the different companies, including the exhibitors, may be effected without jealousies — by conducting institutional advertising, free from any reference to individual pictures or companies. The advertisements, inserted in all national magazines and leading newspapers, as well as radio shows, should ballyhoo, not what a particular picture or a particular company means to the public, but what the entire industry means to it. There is so much that can be brought out to win the public's good will! What other industry, for example, is doing so much for the youth of the country by keeping them off the streets? What other industry can furnish relaxation and entertainment to people and at the same time elevate them with inspiring pictures? It is indeed peculiar that the one industry that can do so much for itself allows its strength to be dissipated, not only by adopting the wrong methods, but also by failing to take advantage of its own opportunities. Something has to be done to increase public good will toward the industry and its product, for, with the national income still at a fantastically high level, the industry is not realizing what it should and could at the box-office. During the war years, of course, it was immaterial whether the industry did anything or not — people had money but had no place to spend it, so they flocked to the movies. Conditions today, however, are different; most people are still earning good wages, but the high cost of living leaves them with fewer dollars for entertainment, and so they have become "choosey" in their selection of pictures to see. If Eric Johnston wants to do something constructive for the industry, here is his opportunity; let him convince the members of his association that boosting the industry as a whole, through genuine institutional advertising, is preferable to each company's boosting itself under the present MPAA public relations program, which can be summed up as nothing more than a pseudo-institutional advertising campaign in which each company insists upon getting into the act regardless of whether or not its pictures truly merit a boost. The motion picture industry has much to be proud of and, through effective instiutional advertising, its virtues, its contributions to the general welfare of our society, can be brought to the attention of the public in a manner that will insure enduring results. This type of advertising can even boast of the forthcoming array of fine films without mentioning the pictures' titles so as not to create points of disagreement. The ballyhoo for these fine films can be left to the companies that produce them, but therein lies the answer to whether or not the industry, after gaining the public's confidence and good will, will retain it, for unless the pictures thus exploited are really good the benefits gained from institutional advertising will vanish in no time. In this respect, the producer-distributors will do well to heed the words of Charles Schlaifer, 20th Century-Fox's advertising and publicity director, who had this to say, in part, in a talk before the New York Society of Kentucky Women : "Public taste has advanced to the point where it will not be satisfied with mere glamor and glittering adjectives. In taking a new look at ourselves we have long since found this out, both in production and promotion of motion pictures. We know that we must present an honest product, honestly advertise it, or lack the audiences which make motion pictures possible." A TIMELY WORD OF CAUTION ON THE USE OF TELEVISION MATERIAL Television is moving ahead at so rapid a pace that many exhibitors are giving thought to the use of the medium as an adjunct to their regular film programs. Great strides have been made in the perfection of theatre television equipment for large-screen presentation, but it will probably be some time before this equipment will be made available to the exhibitors at a reasonable cost, and before arrangements can be worked out for the presentation of television programs in a manner that will make the installation of this special equipment a profitable venture. Meanwhile some exhibitors have already installed television receiving sets in the lobbies or lounges of their theatres so that their patrons can come to the theatre and still not miss a special event that would otherwise keep them at home. Other exhibitors will undoubtedly follow suit. An exhibitor's use of television material is not, however, free from the possibility of legal entanglements, and those of you who are thinking of making use of the medium will do well to read the very informative analysis of some of the legal problems involved, which has been prepared by Mr. Herman M. Levy, general counsel of the Theatre Owners of America. Mr. Levy's analysis follows: "Because of current misconceptions in the minds of many moving picture theatre operators it seems important to discuss some of the legal problems affecting them with regard to the showing of television in their theatres to their patrons. "Where the material being televised is copyrighted, whether if be a play, music, a motion picture, or some other object, it seems clear, in the law, that the theatre owner may not use that material anywhere or in any way in his theatre without a license from the copyright owner. "It would also seem that televising uncopyrighted works, without a license, would be an infringement. The owner of such a work is declared to have a common law right (as distinguished from a statutory copyright) in his work. He is protected by the law, without a copyright, even though there may have already been a performance of his work. The performance does not dedicate his work to the public, as would be the case where copies of an uncopyrighted publication are offered for sale. "As to 'news events," however, there is no property right. Such televised material may be shown in theatres without infringement, provided, however, that no music, drama, etc., either under statutory copyright or common law right, is contained in the television. In other words, the theatre is not violating any laws or rights by showing television of a news event to its patrons without permission. However, if music, etc., protected by statutory copyright, or by common law, are used in the television (for example, a band playing a copyrighted song at a prize fight) there may well be an infringement in regard to the item used. In connection with this freedom to use a 'news' event it is important to determine just what a 'news' event is and how long and in what manner it remains a 'news' event. For example, suppose it is assumed that the law will consider the next Louis-Walcott fight a 'news' event: it is going to be telecast from a private restricted place. To the event an admission will be charged, and for the event exclusive telecasting rights will probably be given to a broadcasting station and to an advertising sponsor. The promoter of the fight is deemed in the law to have the exclusive right to broadcast from the restricted area in which the event takes place. The problem, then, is this: is the theatre that shows the telecast to its patrons on its screen (or in the lounge, or elsewhere on the premises — there is no difference where it is located) — indulging in 'unfair competition' by so doing? This is the most important question to be answered and may have to be determined by the Courts. In the broad sense and definition of the word the prize-fight arenas and ball parks are in competition with motion picture theatres — both outlets seek the amusement dollar. Whether or not, however, it would be held that they are in such competition as to make an unfair violation of it actionable in law has not as yet been determined, but will undoubtedly be before the Courts soon after theatres start using television. (Continued on inside page)