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.
226
THE LAW OF MOTION PICTURES
of films. The film being fragile in its nature, it is easily ruined. If the operator in projecting the film handles it roughly and renders it unfit for further use the exhibitor will be liable for the value of the print. The courts will always give due consideration to the fact that each exhibition leaves its imprint upon the film and that films are peculiarly susceptible to “wear and tear.”
Where the film is destroyed by accident or fire which is not due to any fault on the part of the exhibitor or his employes, the distributor must bear the loss.
Where the film is libelous, and the exhibitor has notice thereof, he is a joint tort feasor.
If the exhibitor is prevented from showing the film because of the closing of his theatre by the public authorities he remains liable for the license fees.11 But if the public authorities prohibit him from exhibiting the film because of its immoral, lewd, or lascivious character he is under no obligation to pay such license fees; as in the latter instance it would be contrary to public policy to compel one to carry out a contract which in its performance would contravene the law.12
There may be said to have arisen, with the coming in of the motion picture industry, a new warranty, that is,
11 Thring v. Lucas (Eng.). Strong on “Dramatic and Musical Law,” 3d Ed., p. 30. See also cases under Section 55.
12 Stott v. Gamble (Eng.) (1916), 115 L. T. 309; 32 T. L. R. 579; 85 L. J. (K. B.) 1750; 2 K. B. 504. Where the licensing authority had refused to permit the theatre
proprietors to exhibit a film, plaintiff, the distributor who had contracted with the proprietors, could not recover any damages as of a breach of contract. Also held in this connection that plaintiff was not an aggrieved party. Stott, ex parte (Eng.) (1916), 114 L. T. 234; 32 T. L. R. 84.