The law of motion pictures (1918)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




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.

238 THE LAW OF MOTION PICTURES In Hammer stein Opera Co. v. Belasco, i2 the interesting question arose as to whether the exhibition of motion pictures violated a covenant in a lease. The lease provided that the premises were “to be used and occupied by the said tenant as a first-class theatre” and that the tenant would not use them or permit them to be used “for any business purpose deemed disreputable or extra hazardous on account of fire, etc.” Belasco had used the theatre for high-class plays for which he charged from fifty cents to two dollars admission; he had, however, licensed the Universal Film Company to exhibit in the theatre a motion picture to which admission fees, ranging from twenty-five cents to one dollar, were charged. It was claimed that such motion pictures were not “firstclass” plays, and that the premises were rendered “extra hazardous by fire.” The court sustained the plaintiff and granted the injunction.43 of breach of covenant to operate “for any other purpose than a theatre and opera house of strictly the first class, etc.” Defendant gave exhibitions of a cheaper standard, and the court held that the lease was violated, and the landlord was entitled to an order. 42 Hammer stein v. Belasco (1914), 161 A. D. (N. Y.) 199; 146 N. Y. Supp. 341. 43 Hammerstein v. Belasco (1914), 161 A. D. (N. Y.) 199; 146 N. Y. Supp. 341. “. . . If the facts set out in the affidavits presented by the plaintiff are true, then the premises are not being used as a first-class theatre, and if such use is continued the value of the property will be greatly diminished. . . . Not only this but the fact is not disputed but that the use to which the theatre is now being put is extra hazardous on account of fire. In answer to this the defendants state they have complied with all the requirements of the municipal authorities, but