From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...
O'Neill v. General Film Co.
New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
171 A.D. 854 (1916)
In 1845, Alexander Dumas published The Count of Monte Cristo (the novel), and in 1870, Charles Fechter wrote a manuscript for a dramatization (the dramatization) based on the novel. The dramatization was publicly performed in England and, as required by English law, a printed copy of the unpublished manuscript was filed with the appropriate office. Fechter subsequently came to the US and performed the dramatization based on the unpublished manuscript until his death in 1879. Ultimately, in 1885, James O’Neill (plaintiff) purchased all rights to the dramatization from John Stetson and continued performances of the dramatization. In 1912, Famous Players Company (Famous)—with O’Neill’s consent—produced a motion picture based on the dramatization and registered a copyright on the motion picture. In 1913, General Film Company (defendant)—without O’Neill’s consent—produced a motion picture that it claimed was based on the novel but that included scenes from the dramatization that were not in the novel. O’Neill filed suit in equity to enjoin General Film from producing or exhibiting any performance or motion picture based on the dramatization, claiming that General Film’s motion picture violated O’Neill’s exclusive rights. General Film denied that its motion picture was based on the dramatization. However, General Film argued, that even if its motion picture was based on the dramatization, the publication and copyrighting of Famous’s motion picture as a derivative work of the dramatization’s manuscript constituted publication of the manuscript itself, which had therefore lost common-law protections pursuant to the Copyright Act of 1909 and placed the dramatization within the public domain. The trial court held that General Film’s motion picture was based on the dramatization and that it therefore infringed O’Neill’s copyright. The trial court awarded O’Neill damages. General Film appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Laughlin, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 618,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.