The law of motion pictures (1918)

216 THE LAW OF MOTION PICTURES the contract the producer was to receive a sum equal to the actual cost of the manufacture of the negative plus a percentage of the gross receipts when the film was released. The distributor failed to accept or pay for the film, and when suit was brought, the court was at a loss to understand whether the action was upon a lease, a sale, or a joint venture. After a careful array of the facts, Judge Greenbaum decided that the complaint should be based upon a breach of contract. The measure of damages would be solely the actual cost of producing the picture. The percentage of the gross receipts was entirely too speculative, as the picture had not been exhibited by the defendant Popular Pictures Corporation, and plaintiff was directed to amend his complaint accordingly.1 1 Goldberg v. Popular Pictures Corp. (1917), N. Y. Law Journal, April 20. Greenbaum, J.: “The subject-matter of the contracts upon which the defendants are sought to be held is the production by the plaintiffs of a feature motion picture to consist of not less than 4,500 feet, to be delivered on or before a fixed date to the defendants Popular Pictures Corporation, who will be referred to as ‘the defendant.’ The legal obligations flowing from the contracts are of a somewhat composite nature, embodying those that are peculiar to a sale, a lease and a joint venture. It lacks, however, all the essential features of any of these transactions. It is not a sale, because the title in the production is reserved in the plaintiffs, the defendant having merely the right to rent, exhibit or otherwise use the films produced by the plaintiffs. It is not altogether a lease, because it is indefinite as to the terms of duration, and it obligates the defendant the Popular Pictures Corporation to the performance of certain active duties or obligations in handling the production. The total amount of what may be termed the ‘rentals’ to be paid to the plain