The law of motion pictures (1918)

DISTRIBUTOR — IN GENERAL 221 evidence from which it can draw a reasonable inference as to the probable approximate amount of such loss.” In Dressier v. Keystone Film Co .,4' the plaintiff, an actress, sued to restrain defendant from granting rights to third parties in a film which was the joint property of both, and for an accounting. The question arose whether the rights granted by the defendant with respect to the film were in the nature of an outright sale or a lease. In holding that the relationship existing between the defendant and the third parties was that of lessor and lessee the court said: — “What the Keystone Film Company has done was to grant the exclusive right to use the picture for a limited term, upon the payment of a fixed sum. This certainly is a lease and not a sale. No absolute or general property in the picture was conveyed or assigned. The use of the picture for a term was all that was granted. The sum paid was not therefore consideration for a sale, but was rent for the use of property. That rent is payable in one sum, rather than in installments, does not change its character.” The producer is entitled to maintain as high a standard as he can attain to in the production of his picture, and the distributor or releasor may not arbitrarily injure that reputation or good will. For instance, where the contract provides that the picture is to be released for a first run only in first-class theatres, the distributor is not at liberty to lease the picture to cheaper or smaller houses. Nor may he mutilate or change the picture, for in that 4 Dressier v. Keystone Co. 5th; aff’d 172 A. D. (N. Y.) (1915), N. L. Law Journal, Aug. 954.