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.

266 THE LAW OF MOTION PICTURES had been taken purporting to hold the shop out as a rendezvous for questionable characters.103 An interesting discussion as to the limits a newspaper may go in criticizing a production or its management is contained in Philipp Co. v. New York Staats-Zeitung.10i Where a man on trial for murder sought to enjoin the production of a play upon the ground that it prevented the conducting of an impartial trial and interfered with the administration of justice, equitable relief, holding that law for libel.105 103 Merle v. Sociological Research Film Corp. (1915), 166 A. D. (N. Y.) 376; 152 N. Y. Supp. 829. 104 Philipp Co. v. New York Staats-Zeitung (1914), 165 A. D. (N. Y.) 377; 150 N. Y. Supp. 1044. “The press is accorded, for the public interests, a qualified privilege to discuss and criticize the management of and productions at a theatre to which the public are invited, and this privilege in the absence of actual malice extends even to ridicule and is without limitation; but since it is accorded for the benefit of the public only and the guidance of public opinion and taste, when the discussion the court refused to grant his remedy, if any, was at or criticism exceeds the bounds of fair and honest criticism, and becomes an intemperate, aspersive attack upon the motive of the management of the theatre, or the character of the production thereat, an evil and malicious motive for the publication may be inferred; and if found to exist, the publication is not protected by the qualified privilege, but may, of course, be justified by absence of malice or by pleading and proving that it was true (cases cited).” 105 Dailey v. Super. Court (1896), 112 Cal. 94; 44 Pac. 458. See also: Brandreth v. Lance (1839), 8 Paige (N. Y.), 26.