Paramore v. Mack Sennett
| Decision Date | 12 November 1925 |
| Citation | 9 F.2d 66 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
| Parties | PARAMORE v. MACK SENNETT, Inc. |
J. W. Paramore, of San Francisco, Cal., and Flint & MacKay, of Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff.
Bauer, Wright & Macdonald, of Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant.
Plaintiff, the author of a literary production published under the title of "The Ballad of Yukon Jake," brings this suit, alleging that the defendant, a moving picture producing company, made and distributed and caused to be exhibited a moving picture under the title of "Yukon Jake," thereby destroying the value of the literary material which was, as plaintiff alleges, adapted to motion picture use. Plaintiff further alleges that, at the time the defendant made the picture under the title of "Yukon Jake," he had prepared for marketing a scenario containing the "story" of "Yukon Jake," entitling it "Yukon Jake, the Killer." His claim is for damages, and for an injunction, and for an accounting of profits.
The poem written by the plaintiff under the title first mentioned was published in a well-known illustrated magazine of national circulation in 1921. It was republished one or more times by the same periodical, in response to requests from the readers, appearing the last time in the year 1923. It was published, also, in 1923 in a bound volume of collected current literary material by a well-known publisher of books and periodicals, and was published in at least one other periodical. The making of these various publications was alleged and proved by the plaintiff, in order to show that his literary production had attained considerable vogue and popularity, identified under the title containing the words "Yukon Jake," which represented the principal character of the poem. The poem was covered by the copyright protecting the contents of the periodical in which it was first published. This copyright was held by the plaintiff under assignment made prior to the date of the occurrence of matters affecting the defendant as alleged in the complaint.
The defendant used the words "Yukon Jake" as the title of a film picture produced by it early in the year 1924. It was admitted on both hands that none of the incidents depicted in the story told by the plaintiff's poem formed any part of the film picture. It was shown in evidence that prior to the release of defendant's film, plaintiff had prepared his scenario and had a promising opportunity to dispose of it to a different motion picture producer, and that the defendant was warned against using the title "Yukon Jake" before its film under that name was actually distributed.
The facts stated warrant a recovery of some amount of damages, if plaintiff possessed in the name "Yukon Jake" a property right which would exclude others from the use of it for motion picture purposes. From all of the authorities which have been cited, it may be concluded, I think, to be the law that no right is held by an author of a literary production in the mere name given to his production, unless the production itself is protected by copyright, and the production is one which has received notoriety with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harms, Inc. v. Tops Music Enterprises, Inc., of Cal.
...an Aid to Equity in Patent, Copyright and Trademark Cases, 1957, 52 Notre Dame Lawyer, pp. 438, 456 et seq. And see, Paramore v. Mack Sennett, Inc., D.C. Cal.1925, 9 F.2d 66; Warner Bros. Pictures v. Majestic Pictures, 2 Cir., 1934, 70 F.2d 310; Paramount Pictures v. Leader Press, 10 Cir., ......
-
Jackson v. Universal Intern. Pictures
...that appellants appropriated the title. An author of a play has no right in the mere title given to his production. Paramore v. Mack Sennett, Inc., D.C., 9 F.2d 66, 67; Martenet v. United Artists Corporation, D.C., 56 F.Supp. 639, 640. To warrant an award of damages for the alleged appropri......
-
Columbia Pictures Corp. v. National Broadcasting Co.
...of unfair competition, Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc., v. Majestic Pictures Corp., 2 Cir., 1934, 70 F.2d 310; Paramore v. Mack Sennett, Inc., D.C.S.D.Cal.1925, 9 F.2d 66; (b) The theme, Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 2 Cir., 1930, 45 F. 2d 119; Roe-Lawton v. Hal E. Roach Studios, D.C.S.D......
-
Whitney v. Ross Jungnickel, Inc.
...rather than being merely incidental or trivial. See Boosey v. Empire Music Co., D.C. S.D.N.Y., 224 F. 646; Paramore v. Mack Sennett, Inc., D.C.S.D.Cal., 9 F.2d 66; M. Witmark & Sons v. Pastime Amusement Co., D.C., 298 F. 470, affirmed 2 Cir., 2 F.2d 1020; Ball, The Law of Copyright and Lite......