In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants (1913)

Page scan 00063 from In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants

Record Details:

Title:
In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants
Date:
1913
Publisher:
New York, Appeal Printing Co.
Volume:
In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants : record volume 4
Leaf #:
00063
Language:
English
Collection:
Government & Law and Early Cinema
Format:
Periodicals
Contributor:
The Museum of Modern Art Library, New York
Sponsor:
Media History Digital Library
Coordinator:
Media History Digital Library
Description:
These seven volumes contain the testimonies and supporting documents from the U.S. District Court's antitrust lawsuit against the Motion Picture Patents Company (MPPC). Formed in 1908, the MPPC (sometimes referred to asœ"the Edison Trust" or just "the Trust") sought to control the American film industry through pooling patents and demanding that producers and exhibitors acquire licenses to those patents. Independent producers and exhibitors, who refused to license the patents, argued that the MPPC was an unlawful monopoly. In 1912 and 1913, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania heard testimonies from both MPPC members, such as Siegmund Lubin, and "Independents" who later became Hollywood moguls, such as William Fox. Ultimately, in 1915, the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which found the MPPC in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and spelled the end for the already weakening MPPC. -- Eric Hoyt, 2012
Date Added:
September 12, 2024
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.

Samuel Long, Direct Examination. 1913 By Mr. Caldwell : Q. Was that a picture involving great negative cost? A. It did. Q. And is it considered in the motion picture art as one of exceptional and rare merit? A. It is. Q. Will you state how that picture was taken? A. The picture is a portrayal of the human side of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, and in order to produce it with the proper environment, a company was sent to Egypt and Palestine, in order to enact the various scenes at the places where they occurred. The company was located in Egypt for a time, in order to produce scenes which occurred in that country during the period of the life of Jesus referred to as the Flight into Egypt. After producing those scenes, the company went to Palestine. Scenes were produced in Bethlehem, Nazareth, the Sea of Galilee and Jerusalem. Structures were made in Jerusalem which were a reproduction of the buildings not now existing. A portion of the Temple was built, in order to enact those scenes in which Jesus was in the Temple. Costumes were made to be correct to that period of time. The time consumed in making this picture was approximately three months. The cost of the picture, which included the cost of making the costumes, building the scenery, hire of actors and actresses, director, extra people which were engaged in Palestine and Egypt, and maintenance of a stock company, aggregated approximately $25,000. Q. Do you mean by that, the cost for producing the negative alone? A. The cost of producing the action and photographing the negative. Q. You do not include in that the cost of printing positives from that negative? A. No positive cost is included in that. That was all prior to making any positive print. Q. Will you state how that picture was handled by the Kalem Company? Was it made the subject of one of its regular releases? A. It was not a regular release. Q. Why not? A. The merit of the subject and the nature of the subject was such that we did not think it should be issued through the regular channels and go into theatres which might use it preceding or succeeding the exhibition of melodrama or comedy pictures. Its cost also, forbade us going through those channels.