The law of motion pictures (1918)

508 THE LAW OF MOTION PICTURES The court held that the sale of prints of the films in Europe constituted a publication of the film, and that since no copyright had been secured in the film in Europe, the work fell into the public domain. Even if copyright had been secured in every country wherein the film had been so sold and exhibited, and all such countries came within Section seven, Subdivision B of the Act (granting protection to foreign authors or proprietors of works), the publication of the film in this country in September, 1912, without securing copyright therein under our statute nevertheless amounted to a dedication of such motion picture.35 The court defines publication in the following language : “If there be such a dissemination of the thing under consideration among the public as to justify the belief, that it took place with the intention of rendering the work common property then publication occurred.” In discussing the question whether the sale of films as in this action amounted to a publication the court states: “I do not see what more the Nordisk Company could have done toward disseminating its work than to sell it everywhere in Great Britain and Europe with knowledge that the play would be performed and the films shown over most of the civilized world. I do not think it makes any difference that each purchaser agrees not to use out of his own country or to sell for export; it is proven that 35 See in this connection: The Mikado Case (1885), 25 Fed. (C. C.) 183. It is immaterial in what country publication of the work is made. “Such rights of authors as are saved by statute are not recognized extra-territorially. They can only be enforced in the sovereignty of their origin.”