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.
172
THE LAW OF MOTION PICTURES
In the same manner that an author or playwright has a right to have the identity of his work retained, so an actor is entitled to have the identity of the picture in which he posed retained. The motion picture producer may not separate particular scenes from the film and make use of them elsewhere, nor has he the right to in
injured his reputation and standing as a motion picture “ star.”
In denying a motion for an injunction pendente lite, the court said:
“Notwithstanding the earnest argument of counsel for the plaintiff, I think this motion should be denied principally for the following reasons:
“ (1) Plaintiff’s right under paragraph third of the contract of -December, 1914 (assuming such contract to have remained in force unaltered), to enjoin the production because he has not approved of the play is doubtful.
“ (2) The play itself is undoubtedly the property of the Essanay Film Manufacturing Company, by which company plaintiff was employed, and the circumstances of plaintiff’s services in connection with the creation of the play distinguish the case from those cases which have applied the principle of another’s exclusive right of literary property.
“ (3) The facts do not justify a claim that tfte association of plaintiff’s name with the play as produced amounts to a fraud upon the public. A fair construction of the advertisements of the play is not that plaintiff is the author or producer, but that he is the star or principal actor.
“(4) It is not claimed that so far as he is pictured in the play his part is garbled or distorted. Whatever of him is shown is a truthful representation. Whether plaintiff’s contract rights reserve to him, rather than to his employers, the sole privilege of determining what of his pictures shall be incorporated into the play as produced is at least doubtful.
“(5) Whether plaintiff will suffer any damage from the production is problematical, while an injunction is certain to work considerable loss to defendants.”
See also in this connection: Gabriel v. McCabe (1896), 74 Fed. (C. C.) 743.