Harvard business reports (1930)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

UNIVERSAL PICTURES CORPORATION 345 the inmates and attendants of their respective institutions and that the general public is not to be admitted either free of charge or for an admission charge: Now therefore be it Resolved, That the admission of the public, either free of charge or for an admission charge, to any such motion picture entertainment or performance is an unfair trade practice and unfair competition to theater owners; and Resolved, That the showing of motion pictures in such institutions where the public is not admitted, either free of charge, or for an admission charge, is a fair trade practice. Exhibitors' Resolution No. 1 The competition from schools, churches, and like institutions is sought to be eliminated by exhibitors' Resolution No. 1, which, as amended and finally passed, is intended to prohibit producers from contracting for the exhibition of pictures at any place where motion pictures are shown to the public, if such exhibition is found to be in competition with a regularly operated motion picture theater. The question of whether such exhibition does so compete is to be determined by arbitration. Educational and scientific films are specifically exempted. From the record it appears that films of the kind in question are sold to such tax-free institutions at prices less than those charged to established theaters. The wording of the resolution is not as clear as it should be. The situation presented is somewhat similar to that which exists between the itinerant merchant or peddler and the established retail dealer, relief from which is sought in the various States by providing for the collection of a large license fee from itinerants. The legality of the purpose of the resolution is questionable. It may be regarded as in restraint of trade, although the trade involved seems neither material in amount nor consequential in character. On the contrary, however, it may be legal for an industry to agree on a classification of customers. This matter, in some form, will probably be considered with the revised contract. The resolution reads as follows: Resolved, That the practice of distributors contracting for the exhibition of motion pictures known in the trade as " entertainment," as distinguished from educational or scientific pictures, at schools or churches, or any other places where motion pictures are shown to the public, found by an impartial arbitration body to be in competition with any regularly operated motion picture theater, is unfair trade practice. (Adopted without objection as a resolution of the conference, p. 343-) The following excerpt is from a suit brought by the United States against the Motion Picture Theater Owners of Oklahoma, in the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Oklahoma, in 1928.