The law of motion pictures (1918)

CHANGING THE MOTION PICTURE 171 The motion picture producer may change the order of the scenes, may edit scenes and may add such scenes which have been discarded because they were “repeats” or because they were regarded in the cutting process as retarding the action; but only in so far as such changes in the picture are not radical in their nature or do not constitute a mutilation of the film. By radical is meant such a change as will occur for instance where a feature film is cut down to a two-reel film or vice-versa, where by adding a large number of discarded scenes a one or two reel film is stretched into a feature picture. With respect to mutilation it is a question of fact in each instance. The remedy both in the case of a radical change and in that of mutilation is an action for libel.183 Title in the work being in the motion picture producer the actor may not go into equity to enjoin the exhibition of such changed film,184 unless in addition to the libel, there is the element of “passing off” or fraud and deception of the public. 1,3 See Section 12. 184 Chaplin v. Essanay (1916), N. Y. Law Journal, May 23d, Hotchkiss, J.; aff’d 174 A. D. (N. Y.) 866. Plaintiff posed for defendant in a two-reel film which was entitled “Burlesque on Carmen.” The defendant, after the termination of plaintiff’s employment, inserted a number of discarded scenes taken in the course of the making of the film and also added several scenes made without the participation of the plaintiff, and after he had completed his work therein. The film was then released as a fourreel feature film. The plaintiff contended that under his contract the defendant could not change the film in any manner, after its completion by him, without first securing his consent. He also contended that the stretching of the film by inserting discarded scenes and scenes taken without his participation, all of which retarded the action and destroyed his prominence in the film, seriously j