Paramount Pictures v. Leader Press, 1944.
| Citation | 24 F. Supp. 1004 |
| Decision Date | 07 October 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 1944.,1944. |
| Parties | PARAMOUNT PICTURES, Inc., et al. v. LEADER PRESS, Inc. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma |
Keaton, Wells & Johnston, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for plaintiffs.
Embry, Johnson, Crowe & Tolbert, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for defendant.
The plaintiffs allege that the Paramount Pictures, Inc., a New York corporation, is engaged in the production of motion pictures and that its subsidiary and coplaintiff, Paramount Pictures Distributing Company, Inc., is engaged in the general distribution and sale of motion pictures produced by the parent company. That the defendant is a corporation doing business in the state of Oklahoma and engaged in the business of producing, printing, selling and distributing advertising accessories for use in advertising and exploiting motion pictures in motion picture theaters located in the state of Oklahoma and elsewhere, which advertising accessories consist of printed sheets or lithographs containing the names, drawings, cartoons and caricatures of prominent actors and actresses in the motion picture profession and the title of the motion picture in which the said actors and actresses are claimed to appear.
Plaintiffs further allege that Paramount Pictures, Inc., has for the past fifteen years or more produced each year not less than fifty feature motion pictures for distribution to motion picture theaters in the United States and the entire world, and not less than fifty feature motion pictures have been exhibited in each of said years in motion picture theaters in the United States and in the state of Oklahoma, and that it will in all probability continue its production at approximately the same rate in the future.
That the plaintiff, Paramount Pictures Distributing Company, Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary corporation and was organized for the purpose of distributing motion pictures for exhibition in theaters in the United States and has been for many years regularly engaged in the business of distributing exclusively for plaintiff Paramount Pictures, Inc., its motion pictures for exhibition in motion picture theaters located in the state of Oklahoma and elsewhere, which pictures are known as "Paramount Pictures." That the feature motion pictures have been produced at great cost and plaintiffs further allege that said pictures have attained the highest standard of distinctive quality and exceptional merit and enjoy an extremely valuable reputation in the mind of the general public and that such pictures are identified in all advertising and publicity material prepared by plaintiffs and on the screen as "Paramount Pictures."
That the producing company employs well-known actors and outstanding personalities as stars and featured players to appear in its motion pictures and has many contracts in force with said personalities for appearance and performance in motion pictures produced by or for it, and that said personalities so utilized by said plaintiff have attained outstanding prominence in the public mind.
The plaintiffs further allege that proper publicity and advertising is indispensable to the stars and featured players appearing and performing in the motion pictures as well as to the motion pictures themselves. The plaintiffs further recognize that because of the necessity for advertising said motion pictures in a manner in keeping with the outstanding quality of said pictures and the prominence of the personalities utilized in the production of said pictures, large sums of money are expended annually in advertising and publicizing nationally in newspapers, magazines and other periodicals, and over the radio its motion pictures, as well as the stars and featured players appearing therein. That they cause special advertisements to be prepared and written so as to attract the attention of the general public to the motion pictures and to the stars and the featured players appearing therein.
That the plaintiff Paramount Pictures, Inc., also employs a special staff of artists to prepare special drawings, pictures, photographs and to prepare special lithographs, posters, display signs, billboards, press sheets and various other advertising material and accessories which are produced at great cost to it and that said advertising accessories are of highly artistic merit and are produced by plaintiff Paramount Pictures, Inc., for the purpose of announcing to the public in the most favorable and most attractive manner the said motion pictures and the stars and featured players appearing therein.
That the said motion pictures produced by or for Paramount Pictures, Inc., are copyrighted under the copyright laws of the United States; that said motion pictures are licensed under copyright by plaintiff Paramount Pictures, Inc., or by plaintiff Paramount Pictures Distributing Company, Inc., for exhibition at motion picture theaters in the United States, including the state of Oklahoma, by written contract under and pursuant to which the licensee for a consideration is granted a limited license to exhibit the motion pictures for a number of days specified in said contract at a specified theater or theaters and upon completion of said exhibition the licensee is required to return the print of said motion pictures to the plaintiffs; that the title in said motion pictures vests at all times in Paramount Pictures, Inc., subject however to the right of the licensee to exhibit said motion pictures in accordance with the provisions of the written contract entered into between the plaintiffs and the licensee. The fee paid by a licensee to the plaintiffs is either a fixed sum or a sum equal to a stated percentage of the gross admission receipts of the licensee's theater and where the fee is a portion of the receipts received by the licensee for the exhibition of any of said pictures, the receipts are diminished by improper advertising, exploitation and publicity of the pictures and the stars and featured players who appear therein.
The plaintiffs further allege that the contract between plaintiffs and a licensee provides that the exhibitors in all advertising and exploitation of each of their motion pictures licensed to them shall advertise and announce each of said motion pictures as "A Paramount Picture" and shall otherwise adhere to the form of announcement contained in the advertising material used by the plaintiffs in respect of each of their motion pictures.
That the plaintiffs at great cost produce, manufacture and print a large supply of said advertising accessories so that these will at all times be available to the exhibitor for the purpose of advertising and exploiting the said motion pictures in conjunction with the exhibition of said motion pictures at the exhibitor's theater.
That the defendant, without the consent of the plaintiffs and without the consent of the actors and actresses employed by the plaintiffs, produces, manufactures, distributes and sells advertising accessories, purporting to relate to and advertise and exploit the motion pictures produced and distributed by the plaintiffs, which advertising accessories unfairly and improperly use the names of the actors and actresses employed by the plaintiffs and the titles of the motion pictures produced and distributed by plaintiffs.
That said advertising accessories so produced, manufactured, printed and distributed by the defendant do not contain the name of the plaintiffs or identify their motion pictures as "Paramount Pictures" and contain misleading and erroneous information and incorporate therein pictures, cartoons and caricatures of the stars and featured players employed by the plaintiffs in a grotesque, inartistic and inferior manner and which do not afford to the said stars and featured players the advertising, publicity and exploitation credit which they would otherwise receive by the use of the advertising accessories produced and distributed by the plaintiffs, and that the reputation of the plaintiffs, and of the stars and featured players, is damaged by the use of said inferior advertising prepared and offered for sale by said defendant.
In their amendment to the bill of complaint, the plaintiffs refer to certain motion pictures, which have been advertised by the defendant. For instance, they allege that for the picture Cleopatra, the poster prepared by the defendant shows the head of Claudette Colbert, depicting her as a negress instead of a white woman and that the advertising matter omits the name of Joseph Schildkraut, which under contractual requirements plaintiffs are required to insert in all advertisements, and that the words, "A Paramount Picture," are omitted from the advertising.
Similar allegations are made with reference to some thirty other pictures and the general allegations are that in said advertisements the name, "A Paramount Picture," and the words, "Adolph Zukor Presents," are omitted; that the faces drawn on the posters are not true likenesses of the players; that the names...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hazlitt v. Fawcett Publications
...seemed to suggest that the right existed under Oklahoma law even though not involved in the case under discussion. Paramount Pictures v. Leader Press, D. C., 24 F.Supp. 1004, reversed on another point in 10 Cir., 106 F.2d 229. I have little hesitation in holding that the courts of Oklahoma ......
-
Gill v. Curtis Pub. Co.
...Corp., 2 Cir., 113 F.2d 806, 138 A.L.R. 15, dealing with California, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky and Missouri law; Paramount Pictures v. Leader Press, Inc., D.C., 24 F.Supp. 1004; State ex rel. Mavity v. Tyndall, 224 Ind. 364, 66 N.E.2d 755; Kunz v. Allen, 102 Kan. 883, 172 P. 532, .r.a./1918......
-
Branson v. Fawcett Publications, Civ. No. 1161.
...Estill v. Hearst Publishing Co., 7 Cir., 186 F.2d 1017; O'Brien v. Pabst Sale. Co., 5 Cir., 124 F.2d 167; and Paramount Pictures v. Leader Press, D.C. Okl., 24 F.Supp. 1004. However many cases indicate that waiver does not extend to the use of one's personality for fiction or commercial pur......
-
Bennett v. City Nat. Bank & Trust Co.
...not passed, and decided the question in the affirmative based on Judge Vaught's suggestion that the right existed in Paramount Pictures v. Leader Press, 24 F.Supp. 1004, reversed on another point in 106 F.2d 229 (10th Cir. Defendants in their answer brief argue that Mashunkashey v. Mashunka......
-
A New Test to Reconcile the Right of Publicity With Core First Amendment Values
...See O'Brien v. Pabst Sales Co., 124 F.2d 167 (5th Cir. 1941).27. Id.28. Id. at 170.29. Paramount Pictures, Inc. v. Leader Press, 24 F. Supp. 1004, 1007 (W.D. Okla. 1938). 30. Id. at 1007.31. See, e.g., Gill v. Hearst Publ'g Co., 253 P.2d 441 (Cal. 1953).32. Cason v. Baskin, 20 So. 2d 243, 2......