Important Legal Decisions
BY NATHAN BURKAN
Canadian Copyright Act
The greatest achievement during the past year
in connection with copyright legislation was the
passage by the Canadian Parliament of an act
to amend and consolidate the law relating to
copyright in Canada.
A motio'n picture photoplay is protected as a
"dramatic work" under the new Act, The terra
of copyright is fixed for the life of the author
and a period of fifty years after his death.
The new Act is a departure from copyright acts
of all other countries of the world in that it
provides for a "compulsory license"; that is to
say, if the owner of the copyright fails to supply
the reasonable demand of the Canadian market,
the Minister of the Crown named by the Governor
and Council to administer the Act may, upon
the terms and conditions stated in the Act, grant
a license to any third party to exploit the work
in Canada.
The Act provides for the registration of works
sought to be protected by the copyright, as well
as for the registration of all assignments or
licenses under the copyright.
It will be necessary to register all assignments
or. licenses, because failure so to do renders
such assignment or license void against any sub-
sequent assignee or licensee for valuable con-
■ sidcration, without actual notice.
Registration fees are $2.00 for registration of
copyright, and $ i .00 for the registration of an
' assignment of copyright.
Competition Between Title of Pictures and Title
of Story
. Judge Learned Hand of the Federal Court
recently rendered a very important decision in
the case of International Film Service' Co., Inct
vs. Associated Producers, Inc. In that case, the
plaintiff had made a picture entitled "The Broken
Doll," basing its picture Upon a short story by
Bruno Lessing that appeared fifteen years ago
in the Cosmopolitan Magazine, . under the title
"The Broken Doll." The defendant made a pic-
ture which it also entitled "The Broken Doll,"
but it was based upon an altogether different story,
the only similarity, of course, .being in the titles.
It had long been supposed that there was no
competition between, a motion picture and a prior
novel or story under the same title, on an er¬
roneous conception of Atlas vs Street & Smith,
204 Fed., 389. Judge Learned Hand, however,
ruled that there is direct competition between
these two classes of literary work, and that if
the novel or story had acquired a secondary-
meaning and was well known to the public, he
would certainly restrain.
He refused to grant an injunction in the par¬
ticular case before him, for the reason that the
story was fifteen years old, had only been printed
in one issue of the Cosmopolitan Magazine, and
it was unlikely that the public was familiar with
the title.
But the decision is of far-reaching importance
in that it expressly sets at rest the erroneous
conception held with respect to the Atlas case,
and definitely holds a picture and a story to be>
directly in competition with each other. This
means that if a story or novel haa acquired a
reputation and is known under its title, a pro¬
ducer cannot thereafter make a picture on a
different theme, using the same title of the story
or novel. If he does so, he is guilty of infringe¬
ment and may be restrained.
Rights of a Co-Author
An important decision was handed down by
the Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of
Maurel vs. Smith. In that case, Mme. Maurel
had written a book of an operetta, which book
was used in part by Robert B. Smith in the.
composition of "Sweetheart."
It was contended by Smith that the hook
actually used by him in the operetta was not.
the hook as written by Mme, Maurel, but it was
shown conclusively that, although changed in
many respects, Mine. Mauiefs work was never¬
theless interwoven with the work of the- other
authors of the operetta.
The Court held that this constituted a co-
authorship; that the amount of collaboration
between two co-authors need not be substantial
or equal; that if, in fact, one collaborates with
another, no matter in how slight a degree, the
resulting composite work becomes the work in
common of all the co-authors, and each one h»
entitled to share in the profits thereof.
Liability of Manager Signnig a Contract
An interesting case on the question of the
. liability of a 'manager with respect to a contract
of employment signed by him was Castle va.
Dillingham.
There Miss Castle sued Charles B. Dillingham
for breach of a contract of employment. She
had been employed under a written, contract for
services to be rendered at the Century Roof. Her
contention was that her employment was by Dill¬
ingham. His contention was that the employ¬
ment was by the Century Roof, and that he had
merely "signed as agent. It seems that Dilling¬
ham and Ziegfeld were hnth managers at the
Century Roof, and they each signed contracts of
employment on behalf oE the corporation, at
follows:
"Century Amusement Corporation,
By Dillingham and Ziegfeld,
C. B. Dillingham."
Miss Castle sued for $30,000, and the jury
rendered a verdict in favor of Dillingham.
Use of Cut-Outs or Discarded Films
A novel point was decided by Judge Hough
in the District Court recently. It seems that
Charlie Chaplin, years ago, had made twelve
pictures for the Lone Star Film. Corporation.
In the taking of the pictures a considerable
amount of film was thrown out as unsuitable for
the final negative. Such discarded matter is
usually designated as "cut-out."
The Rollo Sales Corp. recently acquired these
cut-outs and proceeded to assemble them into
pictures by patching together these isolated and
disconnected cut-outs, in all of which, of course,
Charlie Chaplin, appeared. They designated the
three pictures that they so made, "Dollars and
Doughnuts," "The Movie Nut" and "The Boot¬
legger."
Chaplin warned thein that he would not tolerate
this practice, and on their refusal to pay any
attention he brought suit in the United States
District Court, claiming that such acts on the
part of the defendant constituted unfair competi¬
tion and were likely to hurt his reputation as an
actor, director and producer.
The Rollo Company admitted that they had
assembled these cut-outs, but contended that they
had the right to do so, inasmuch as they own
the film. Their contention, however, was thrown
out, and the Court issued a temporary injunction
to Chaplin, upon his filing a bond for $20,000,
which bond was filed.
Author Infringing His Own Work
An interesting copyright case was decided not
long ago in Ireland. It seems that an author had
written a hook for school use, the copyright of
which had been assigned by him to the plaintiff,
his publisher, and the author had agreed not to
write any similar' work during the existence of'
the copyright.
The author subsequently wrote for the defend¬
ant, another publisher, a hook along the same
lines as the first book, adopting the same system
and representing the same kind of lessons and
intended for the same class of pupils. This book
was published by the defendant- publisher.
Tt was held that in this case the author waB
guilty of infringing his own copyright. That he
had no more right than a stranger to fake the
material of this first work and use it in the
290
|
