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.
224
THE LAW OF MOTION PICTURES
Where the producer has entered into a contract for the sale of “state rights” and before performance of the same, sells the right to the same territory to a third party, who purchases in good faith, it would seem that equity will not decree specific performance of the contract, but leave the injured party to his remedy at law.6
However, the purchaser of state rights has no right to duplicate the number of positive prints by “duping” or any other method.
Where state rights are granted upon condition that royalties be paid and the distributor breaches that condition, the producer may maintain replevin for his films.7
tained the exclusive right to exhibit this film in Muskegon, he had the same right of action against any person unlawfully or fraudulently invading that exclusive right that the Film Exchange Company itself would have had in the absence of the contract. It would hardly be contended that the corporation owning and controlling the use of this film could not protect its rights by suit to prevent the unauthorized use thereof. No good reason is perceived for denying the same right to the assignee of the corporation’s exclusive rights within the contract limits of time and place.”
Tree v. Bowkett (Eng.) (1896), 12 T. L. R. 181. Mr. Beerbohm Tree having licensed one Abud
to produce “Trilby” in certain territory, it was held that Abud was the proper person to maintain an action for infringement of the play in that territory, and not Tree.
See also Section 18.
6 Davis v. Epoch Producing Co. (1915), 91 Misc. (N. Y.) 631; 155 N. Y. Supp. 597.
7 Vilagraph v. Swaab (1915), 248 Pa. 478; 94 Atl. 126; Lubin v. Swaab (1913), 240 Pa. 182; 87 Atl. 597; Biograph Co. v. International Film Traders (1912), 76 Misc. (N. Y.) 436; 134 N. Y. Supp. 1069; Adams v. Fellers (1910), 88 S. C. 212; 70 S. E. 722. For a discussion of and excerpts from the above cases, see Section 78.
See generally on the rights of a