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.
210
THE LAW OF MOTION PICTURES
wrong.10 And such liability would seem to be criminal as well as civil.11
And where a director has placed an actor in a dangerous part wherein he sustains injury he is the alter ego of the employer in the same manner as the foreman or superintendent of a shop. The rule applies as well to acts of omission as to acts of commission.
He is ordinarily vested with the right to employ and discharge actors and other employes. But he has no inherent authority to engage an actor for a year and thereby bind the company.12
He is entitled to a reasonable amount of publicity where he has contracted therefor, and in that event may insist that the display advertising and billing matter have his name printed thereon.13 Where his name is so advertised,
10 Danville Press v. Harrison (1901), 99 111. App. 244.
11 Slate v. Mason (1894), 26 Oregon, 273; 38 Pac. 130; Ickes v. State (1898), 8 Ohio Circ. Dec. 442; Com. v. Kneeland (1834), Thach. Crim. Cas. (Mass.) 346; aff’d 20 Pick. 206; Clay v. People (1877), 86 111. 147.
12 Vogel v. St. Louis Museum (1880), 8 Mo. App. 587.
13 Brenan v. Fox Film Corp. (1916), N. Y. Law Journal, Aug. 25. “The plaintiff who is the author of a photoplay known as ‘The Daughter of the Gods’ seeks to enjoin the exhibition of it by the defendant without an
accompanying ascription to him of the authorship, and without giving prominent publicity, in the various ways customarily employed in the motion picture business to advertise photoplays, to the fact that the plaintiff ‘is the originator, author and producing director of such photoplay.’ The plaintiff was employed by the defendant in January, 1915, at a weekly salary to write for it scenarios and direct the production of motion picture or photoplays. The engagement was oral, for no definite period, and contained no provision to insure to the plaintiff the pub