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.

USING SAME OR SIMILAR TITLES 439 This rule, however, is limited to the extent that the title must not be used in such a manner as to lead the public to believe that the later work to which the title is applied is the identical literary production of the former work. The courts have always required the subsequent user of such title to affix thereto some phrase or expression which will distinguish to the public the old and the new work.33 33 Atlas Mfg. Co. v. Street & Smith (1913), 204 Fed. (C. C. A.) 398. Van Valkenburgh, J.: “So the copyright of a book does not prevent others from taking the same title for another book, though the copyright has not expired; and on the expiration of the copyright of a novel any person may use the plot for a play, copy or publish it or make any other use of it as he may see fit. . . . The right to use a copyrighted name upon the expiration of the copyright becomes public property, subject to the limitation that the right be so exercised as not to deceive members of the public or lead them to believe that they are buying the particular thing which was produced under the copyright.” Glaser v. St. Elmo (1909), 175 Fed. (C. C.) 276. “The rule is well settled that, on the expira tion of a patent for an article which has become identified by some particular name, as the name of the inventor, although it is open to the public to manufacture the patented article and to call it by the name by which it is commonly known, it is unfair competition to do so unless the person making the article affixes to it a plain notice that it is not made by the owner of the original patent, but by some one else. Singer Mfg. Co. v. June Mfg. Co., 163 U. S. 169; 16 Sup. Ct. 1002; Merriam v. Famous Shoe etc. Co., 47 Fed. (C. C.) 411. The same rule has been applied to copyrights. Merriam Co. v. Ogilvie, 159 Fed. (C. C. A.) 638.” Estes v. Williams (1884), 21 Fed. (C. C.) 189; Estes v. Leslie (1886), 27 Fed. (C. C.) 22; Estes v. Worthington (1887), 21 Fed. (C. C.) 154.