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.

178 THE LAW OF MOTION PICTURES engaged to pose in the picture and hence agrees to present himself at the places where the picture can be taken. Unless, therefore, he expressly provides otherwise in his contract of employment he must attend at the places where the picture is to be taken and the cost of transportation, as well as of his board and lodging, must be borne by him.193 Section 57. — Booking agencies. In several of the states, laws have been passed requiring all agencies that procure employment for actors to obtain licenses and otherwise comply with certain requirements. These agencies are not permitted to charge more than a fixed rate and for a stated period during which the actor receives a salary.194 Attempts are often made to evade the statute, by inserting a provision in the booking contract that the person procuring the engagement is a "manager” and that the increased rate of compensation is paid in consideration of certain sendees rendered or to be rendered — more or 193 Batty v. MeliUo (Eng.) (1850), 10 C. B. 282; Smith v. Herri n g-H allMarvin Safe Co. (1909), 115 N. Y. Supp. 204. See in this connection: Day v. Klaw (190S), 112 N. Y. Supp. 1072. On the question of the distance he may be required to travel see: Gath v. Interstate Amusement Co. (1912), 170 111. App. 614. 194 Chapter 700 of the Laws of 1910 (New York), as amended by Chapter 587 of the Laws of 1916. Interstate Amusement Co. v. Albert (1913), 161 S. W. (Tenn.) 488. A booking agency which had made a contract in one state for the performance of certain acts in another state, was held not to haw complied with the provisions of the latter state with respect to license and tax, and so could not recover.