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.
DIRECTOR AND OTHER EMPLOYES
209
comes into existence, and takes concrete, tangible form, it becomes the property of the one who has paid him for such work. If he attempts to use the same thereafter, he is as much of an infringer as a stranger, and he may be restrained and punished.8
Section 73. — Director and other employes.
Directors, camera men and other employes of film companies are amenable to the general rules governing master and servant. Directors in particular have been recognized, like competent actors, as being artists possessing in greater or lesser degree the attributes of skill, taste and judgment, and as such their rights and duties must be defined in accordance with the rules heretofore set out for special, unique and extraordinary employes.
For example, a skillful director who has contracted for a definite period for his services, may not arbitrarily breach his contract; if he does so, he may be restrained.
He is, for many purposes, the agent of the company. Where he supervises or directs the production of a libelous picture he becomes personally liable as a joint tort feasor with his employer.9 Even though the motion picture producer has no actual knowledge of the libel, his failure to control his agent would be equivalent to such disregard of the rights of others as to amount to intentional
8 See Section 8.
9 Spooner v. Daniels (1854), 22 Fed. Cas. (C. C.) No. 13,244a; Watts v. Fraser (Eng.) (1837), 7 C. & P. 369; Hunt v. Bennett (1859), 19 N. Y. 173; Bruce v. Reed (1883), 104 Pa. St. 408;
Weil v. Nevin, 1 Pa. Sup. Ct. Cas. 65 ; Keyzor v. Newman (Eng.) , 1 F. & F. 559; Mecabe v. Jones (1881), 10 Daly (N. Y.), 222; Smith v. Utley (1896), 92 Wis. 133; 65 N. W. 744.