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.
64
THE LAW OF MOTION PICTURES
the author’s talents.92 But where the critic distorts the work 93 or uses the criticism as a means of attacking the character or private life of the author,94 he is guilty of
damnum absque injuria. Carr v. Hood, 1 Campb. 354; Strauss v. Francis, 4 Fost. & F. 1114.” To the same effect: Soane v. Knight, Moody & M. 74; Thompson v. Shackell, Moody & M. 187, Swan v. Tappan, 5 Cush. 105; Gott v. Pulsifer, 122 Mass. 235.
Walker v. Tribune (1887), 29 Fed. (C. C.) 827. An attorney who had written a pamphlet was referred to as a “crank.” Held not libelous per se.
02 Naulty v. Bulletin Co. (1903) , 206 Pa. St. 128; 55 Atl. 862. A statement respecting a writer on historical subjects that he was not qualified as an expert in historical matters and that in sending certain letters and in acting as an officer of a historical society he was guilty of fraud and deception, was held not to be libelous as it did not impugn the good faith of plaintiff, but merely took issue as to the correctness of the facts set forth in the letters sent out by plaintiff.
93 Carr v.Hood (Eng.), 1 Campb. 355. Where the critic introduced fiction in order to distort and make ridiculous the work, he was held liable for libel. See
also: Tabart v. Tepper (Eng.), 1 Campb. 351 ; Whistler v. Ruskin (Eng.) (1878), Times, Nov. 26, 27.
94 Cooper v. Stone (1840), 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 434. Criticism of the work of an author is permissible, but the critic may not attack the moral character of the author in his review; where he does so it becomes a question of good faith, and when the critic raises the question of privilege, it is for the jury to pass on.
“I do not speak of criticism upon the works of an author in the abstract; for this I admit no action can lie. Certainly not, unless the criticism be grossly false and work a special damage to the proprietor of the book at which the strictures are levelled.”
Croasdale v. Tantum (1880), 6 Houst. (Del.) 60. A reference to an editor of a newspaper as a“ miserable specimen of humanity” was held to be libelous in connection with a statement that defendant was obliged to write the article to apprise the public of an attempt to destroy the character of defendant.
Spooner v. Daniels (1854), Fed.