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.
RELATIONSHIP OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYE 27
relationship existing between an author and a motion picture producer is that of independent contractors or that of master and servant.
If the relationship is one of independent contractors then the author retains all those rights in his work which have not been expressly or by necessary implication, from the circumstances of the case, granted to the motion picture producer.
If the relationship is one of master and servant there is a presumption in law that the parties bargained — one to give up the results of his mental labor in exchange for a stipend paid by the other; and unless the servant expressly reserves unto himself some rights in the work, the master will be deemed the sole proprietor thereof and entitled to all the benefits flowing out of such ownership.36 In such case no formal assignment of all rights in the work is necessary.37
36 Colliery Engineer Co. v. United Corresp. Schools Co. (1899), 94 Fed. (C. C.) 152; Carte v.
Evans (1886), 27 Fed. (C. C.) 861; Schumacher v. Schwencke (1885), 25 Fed. (C. C.) 466; Little v. Gould (1852), Fed. Cas. No. 8395; 2 Blatchf. 362; Lawrence v. Dana (1869), Fed. Cas. No. 8136; Solomon v. United States (1890), 137 U. S. 342; 11 Sup. Ct. 88; Gill v. United States (1896), 160 U. S. 426; 16 Sup. Ct. 322; Bleistein v. Donaldson Lith. Co. (1903), 188 U. S. 239; 23 Sup. Ct. 298; Dielman v. White (1900), 102
Fed. (C. C.) 892; Press Pub. Co. v. Monroe (1896), 73 Fed. (C. C. A.) 196; Chamberlayne v. Am. Law Book Co. (1908), 163 Fed. (C. C.) 858; Am. Law Book Co. v Chamberlayne (1908), 165 Fed. (C. C. A.) 313; Peters v. Borst (1889), 9 N. Y. Supp. 789; reversed in 142 N. Y. 62; 36 N. E. 814; Heine v. Appleton (1857), Fed. Cas. No. 6324 (C. C.)
37 Lawrence v. Aflalo (Eng.) (1902), 20 T. L. R. 42; 1 Ch. 264; 85 L. T. 605. Where the publisher employed and paid one to write an article as part of a work which