The law of motion pictures (1918)

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.

34 THE LAW OF MOTION PICTURES * But a distinction must be carefully drawn between works created as an express part of the employment or as an incident to it and compositions made from information and knowledge acquired in the course of employment. In the former case the work belongs to the master, as has already been stated; but in the latter, it has been held that such literary property belongs to the author.44 After leaving the employ of the producer he may develop the ideas which he has conceived during his employment. He may even go to the same original sources of information, and may make use in developing his work of whatever peculiar experience he may have acquired because of his former employment.45 44 Peters v. Borst (1889) , 9 N. Y. Supp. 789; reversed in 142 N. Y. 62; 36 N. E. 814, upon another ground. The fact that one while in the employ of another composes a work from information and knowledge acquired in the course of his employment does not entitle the employer to the literary property unless there is an express agreement to that effect. In Colliery Engineer Co. v. United Corresp. Schools Co. (1899), 94 Fed. (C. C.) 152, it was said: “Besides, it is thought that, although Ewald was not at liberty to reproduce such of his work as had been copyrighted by the employers for whom it was prepared, even by availing of his recollection of the contents of the copyrighted pamphlets, he was not debarred, after his contract terminated, from making a new compilation, nor from using the same original sources of information, nor from availing of such information as to the needs of students and the best methods of getting in mental touch with them as he may have acquired while superintending complainant’s school.” 45 Colliery Engineer Co. v. United Corresp. Schools (1899), 94 Fed. (C. C.) 152. See part of opinion quoted on this page under footnote 44.