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.
42
THE LAW OF MOTION PICTURES
This is of great importance to the motion picture producer who has secured a license from only one of the coauthors. In such case, assuming that the co-authors have some agreement between themselves respecting the division of moneys secured from the exploitation of the work, the remedy of one co-author is against the other; and while he may compel the other to account, he may not compel the licensee to account to him. In other words, the motion picture producer is accountable only
of such property would have the result otherwise, they must bring it about by contract.” If he takes “more than his share of the rents and income, without the consent of his co-owners,” and refuses “in a reasonable time after demand, to pay such cotenants their share thereof . . . he will be liable to an action of special assumpsit.”
Drake v. Hall (1914), 220 Fed. (C. C. A.) 905. Letters patent were issued to both parties to the suit as joint patentees. “Under such grant the rule is elementary that each of these patentees was vested with an undivided half interest therein, creating the relation between them of cotenants for all benefits of the grant, so that each became entitled to use thereof without accountability to the other cotenant. No relation of copartner
ship is involved in such ownership. . . .” To the same effect, Central Brass v. Stuber (1915), 220 Fed. (C. C. A.) 909; Pusey v. Miller (1894), 61 Fed. (C. C.) 401; Clum v. Brewer (1S55), 2 Curtis C. C. 506; Nillson v. Lawrence (1912), 148 (N. Y.) A. D. 678; 133 N. Y. Supp. 293; Blackledge v. Weir (1901), 108 Fed. (C. C. A.) 71; Lalance & Grosjean Mfg. Co. v. Nat’ l Enameling & Stamping Co. (1901), 108 Fed. (C. C.) 77. But see Klein v. Beach (1916), 232 Fed. (D. C.) 240; aff’d (1917) 239 Fed. (C. C. A.) 108. “Here both Beach and Klein became the owners of Klein’s drama and each could then do with it what he pleased, with the duty of accounting over. . . . But in all these instances one would be obliged to account to the author.”