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 (1914)

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:
1914
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 5
Leaf #:
000451
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 21, 2023
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.

John Collier, Direct Examination. 2901 Sunday. Well, practically two or three committees are at work on the same day. The inspection of films is carried out in the studios of the various manufacturers. All the Patents Company product is brought to the studio of the Motion Picture Patents Company, at 80 Fifth Avenue. The Mutual and Universal companies have their studios, and the feature companies provide studios. Every foot of every film is looked at by the censoring committee, sample copies being submitted to it. If there is a disagreement in the censoring committee, or if the Secretary disagrees, or if the manufacturer is aggrieved, the film is then appealed to the General Committee which passes on it with final power. As soon as the Board censors the film, it is listed, or is condemned, or passed, or passed with eliminations, and a bulletin is sent each week to something over three hundred cities containing statements of all the approved, condemned, or changed films. Mr. Grosvenor: When you say a bulletin is sent to the cities, to whom is it sent? The Witness : To a representative who is the active agent in that city, be it the Mayor, Police Chief, or some civic body which has concerned itself. In Chicago, to Major Funkhauser, Chief of the Morals Police ; in Boston, to the Chief of the License Bureau ; in Philadelphia, to the Children's Protection Society; to the appropriate agent in whatever city this bulletin goes each week; and when the Board fears that its verdict may not be lived up to by the producer a special bulletin is sent out, and also the exchanges are notified by telegraph so that they will be warned in advance. This routine is invariable, whether the film has been condemned as a whole, or whether only a part of it has been condemned and the manufacturer has refused to make the change suggested. Q. What are the amounts of the contributions to the support of the National Board of Censorship made by the licensed producers and the unlicensed producers within the last few months? A. Contributions are now coming in on regular monthly payments at the rate of nine hundred dollars per month from the Motion Picture Patents group, and three hundred and fifty dollars from the independent groups. Occasionally a few feature film companies will make small and irregular contributions. The independent contributions