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.
58
THE LAW OF MOTION PICTURES
pictures took two or more separate scenarios written by two or more people, or even by the same person, and
together with eight other volumes under the title “Encyclopedia of Music.” Defendants were enjoined.
Drummond v. Aitemus (1894), 60 Fed. (C. C.) 338. Where there were published a few of a series of lectures given by plaintiff which lectures had been dedicated to the public, the lectures having been incorrectly copied and the book purported to contain the entire series of lectures, it was held that an injunction would issue to enjoin such publication.
Hart v. De Wilt, 1 Cent. Law J. 360. “I think that the plaintiff has such an interest in his name and reputation as an author as entitles him to invoke the aid of equity in restraining the defendant from falsely representing that a literary production published and sold by the defendant, is the work of the plaintiff.”
In this case the defendant published a book several chapters of which had been written by the plaintiff and other parts by another. The authorship of the entire book was ascribed to plaintiff, although at the end of the book there was an explanatory
notice. The court granted a temporary injunction.
Excerpt from Editorial of the N. Y. Law Journal of March 21, 1916, in discussing Morang v. Le Sueur (Can.) (1911), 45 Can. Sup. Ct. 95.
The learned Chief Justice speaks of the absence of English authorities, but in a note to the story in Case and Comment it is stated that “in England apparently the same rule has been laid down in an unreported case,” citing The Writer (Boston, vol. 26, No. 10, p. 150). Substantially in accord with these decisions was one of the German Imperial Court, the substance of which was stated in the Harvard Law Review for May, 1913, as follows:
“A Lady who owned a private residence in Berlin, of which she occupied the upper floor, while the lower floor was let to a tenant, desired to have the vestibule of the house decorated by a fresco painting and engaged a well known artist to do the work. The painting when finished represented an island with some nude figures of sirens. To these nudes the lady who had ordered the painting took exception, and