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.

WHERE PRODUCER HAS NOT FOLLOWED TEXT 59 combined them all into one picture, he would be distinctly violating the right of separate identity, and would be liable in damages and injunction. Where in the case of the granting of a license, the licensee agrees that no changes or alterations shall be made, or no artist shall be engaged without securing the consent of the licensor, a violation of such agreement will be enjoined.84 she had another artist overpaint the figures so that they appeared as draped. The first artist contended that this change violated rights which as an artist he had in the integrity of his work, and although the owner covered the altered portion of the fresco by a curtain, he was not satisfied, but brought an action demanding the restoration of the painting to its original condition, or failing in that demand, its entire withdrawal from where it might be visible to strangers. The lower court granted the latter prayers, and the plaintiff appealed. Held, that the overpainted drapery must be removed. (79 Entscheidungen des Reichsgerichts, 397, German Imperial Court, 1912). The court said that the principle of the decision must be deduced from the relative rights of the owners, of the public, of the artist to his reputation, and perhaps from a right of personality, which, even if not recognized as a distinct generic right, may yet be enforced with regard to particular interests. Although the German law is codified, there is no explicit provision applicable to the particular controversy involved. It is significant that rights of control of a manuscript or a painting have been upheld both in code and common-law jurisdictions. A result similar to that reached in these cases ought to be worked out everywhere upon some theory, no matter what the general form or particular provisions of the local law may be. The remarks of Chief Justice Fitspatrick in the Supreme Court of Canada (supra) upon the unique and complex character of literary property may be taken as a guide in effectuating justice in any controversy of this nature. 84 Royle v. Dillingham, (1907),