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.
40
THE LAW OF MOTION PICTURES
This is subject to the further limitation that such grant does not injure or destroy the interest of the coowner or co-owners in the common property.50 Where the motion picture reproduction is of the same high standing and quality as the work itself, it will not ordinarily be regarded as injurious to or destructive of the original work, nor will the granting of such rights amount to an impairment of the co-tenant’s interest in the common property.51
Where, however, a co-owner permits the making of an insignificant reproduction, with a poor cast, of a highclass drama or novel, equity will, in such cases, intervene
50 Osborn v. Schenck (1880), 83 N. Y. 200. In discussing the question whether an owner in common of a chattel has a remedy against the other co-owner upon a destruction by such other coowner of the common property, Finch, J., said: “If that possession develops into a destruction of the property or the interest of the co-tenant, or into such a hostile appropriation of it as excludes the possibility of beneficial enjoyment by him or ends in a sale of the whole property which ignores and denies any other right, then a conversion is established and trover may be maintained against the wrongdoer.” The court then quotes in support of this proposition: White v. Osborn (1839), 21 Wend. (N.
Y.) 72; Tyler v. Taylor (1850), 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 585; Van Doren v. Baity (1877), 11 Hun (N. Y.), 239; Delaney v. Root, 99 Mass. 547; Wheeler v. Wheeler (1851), 33 Me. 347; Dyckman v. Valiente (1870), 42 N. Y. 549.
51 Herbert v. Fields (1915), 152 N. Y. Supp. 487. “Plaintiff urges that the production of the moving pictures to large crowds at low prices of admission ‘destroys’the work. While the question whether the moving picture production detracts from or adds to its value as a musical comedy may be debatable, it seems perfectly clear that any analogy sought to be derived from the total physical destruction of an article owned in common is utterly inapplicable.”