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.
DISTRIBUTOR — IN GENERAL
223
And it would seem that he need not join, in such an action, the producer from whom he obtained the rights. If the producer attempts to license another for the same territory and for the same film, he will also be restrained.5
5 General Film Co. v. Kalem Co. & Kinetograph Co. (1913), United States District Court, South. Dist. of N. Y., April 16. The action was brought to enjoin defendant Kalem from granting a license to represent a copyrighted drama and the defendant Kinetograph Company from exhibiting the same.
Ward, J.: “The effect of the contract between the complainant and the Kalem Company was to give the complainant the exclusive right to represent and grant to others the right to represent by moving pictures the copyrighted drama. There was nothing left in the Kalem Company to grant to anyone else during the continuance of the complainant’s exclusive license. The complainant may properly ask for an injunction restraining a similar representation by anyone else even though acting in good faith and without notice. The motion is granted.”
J esse L. Lashj Co. v. Celebrated Players Film Co. (1914), 214 Fed. (D. C.) 861. Defendant con
tracted with plaintiff for Illinois and other state rights for “Brewster’s Millions.” The Chicago censor eliminated several scenes and while defendant was attempting to adjust this matter plaintiff contracted for the same state rights with another company.
Held that plaintiff was not entitled to enjoin the exhibition of the pictures and that it should be enjoined.
Gilligham v. Ray (1909), 157 Mich. 488; 122 N. W. 111. The complaint set forth that plaintiff had acquired from the Chicago Film Exchange the sole right to exhibit the “Gans-Nelson Fight” pictures. That defendants had obtained films from the same exchange and were about to exhibit them. Said the court:
“The Chicago Film Exchange, so far as the bill shows, owed no duty to complainant to protect him against the unlawful or fraudulent use of their film by others. If complainant had any cause of action whatever, it was against defendants. Having ob