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.
62
THE LAW OF MOTION PICTURES
used at the option of the motion picture producer in connection with the use of the work.88 Where the motion picture producer is the owner of the work or where the literary product is in the public domain, it would seem that he is not bound to use the name of the author in connection with the exploitation of the work; that is, he is not required to use the name of the author, but, on the other hand he may not use any other name.89
88 Clemens v. Belford (1883), 14 Fed. (C. C.) 728. “It does not seem to me that an author or writer has or can acquire any better or higher right in a nom de plume or assumed name than he has in his Christian or baptismal name. When a person enters the field of authorship he can secure to himself the exclusive right to his writings by a copyright under the laws of the United States. If he publishes anything of which he is the author or compiler, either under his own proper name or an assumed name, without protecting it by copyright, it becomes public property, and any person who chooses to do so has the right to republish it and to state the name of the author in such form in the book, either upon the title page or otherwise, as to show who was the writer or author thereof.
89 Jones v. American Law Book Co. (1908), 125 A. D. (N. Y.) 519;
109 N. Y. Supp. 706. Plaintiff agreed to write legal articles for defendant for one year at a specified fate of payment per page. Contract provided that work was to belong absolutely to defendant, that defendant could make any and all charges it desired. It was held that in view of the contract made, plaintiff could not insist upon having his name printed as author of the work.
Mallory v. Mackaye (1898), 86 Fed. (C. C.) 122; modified in 92 Fed. (C. C. A.) 749, on another point. Plaintiff engaged defendant for a specified period and agreed to pay him a stipulated salary as well as a share of the profits. Defendant agreed that title in defendant’s productions should belong to plaintiff. It was held that a patent for a revolving stage secured by defendant and a play written by him belonged to plaintiff; that omitting the