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.

BOOKING AGENCIES 179 less fictitious. The courts have prevented recovery upon such contracts.195 The booking agent is entitled to his compensation when the introduction is effected and the actor is eventually accepted.196 Where the contract of employment was postponed by the actor through force majeure the actor is not obligated to pay until he actually enters upon his engagement.197 195 Meyers v. Walton (1912), 76 Misc. 510; 135 N. Y. Supp. 574. Held that the plaintiff who sued for services which he claimed he rendered as “manager” under a contract calling for a compensation of 5% of any salary received by defendants for performing in a vaudeville sketch, was evading the Theatrical Agency License law (Chap. 700, Laws 1910, amended 1916), and a judgment in his favor was reversed. 196 Colies v. Mangham (Eng.) (1909), Times, Dec. 21. One who is in the business of placing dramatic compositions for production is entitled to compensation when in his business capacity he introduces an author to a manager who eventually accepts his play. See also: King v. Broadhurst (1914), 164 A. D. (N. Y.) 689; 150 N. Y. Supp. 376. An actor who made a contract with a playwright whereby he agreed to procure a producer of a play provided he was given the leading role may recover for the reasonable value of his services for securing such a manager where he waived his right to play the leading role upon the representation of the playwright that he would “do what is right” and other similar expressions. 197 Foster’s Agency, him,., v. Romaine (Eng.) (1916), 32 T. L. R. 545. Plaintiff sued for breach of a contract whereby he was to be compensated by defendant for procuring an engagement in Australia. Because of the dangers incidental to submarine warfare defendant 'postponed her engagement. Held there could be no recovery, as defendant had not breached the contract. Auckland & Brunetti v. Collins (Eng.) (1898), 14 T. L. R. 348. A booking agent’s agreement for