Charlie Chaplin´s Burlesque on Carmen   next   previous

Burlesque on Carmen Clippings 84/101

Moving Picture World, New York, June 10, 1916.

Charlie Chaplin‘s Burlesque on Carmen Scenes

„No Injunction for Chaplin“

Editorial content. „No Injunction for Chaplin

      Application Made by Sid Chaplin to Stop Carmen

      Burlesque Is Denied.

      Judge Hotchkiss of the Supreme Court of the state

of New York on Monday, May 24, denied the application

of Charlie Chaplin for an injunction to restrain the V-L-S-E and

the Essanay Company from distributing the four-reel

Essanay-Chaplin comedy, Charlie Chaplin‘s Burlesque on

,Carmen.‘ In the opinion denying Chaplin‘s motion for

injunction, which was argued originally on May 12, Judge

Hotchkiss said: ,Notwithstanding the earnest argument

of counsel for the plaintiff, I think this motion should be denied

principally for the following reasons:

      ,First. Plaintiff‘s right under paragraph three of the contract

of December, 1914 (assuming such contract to have

remained in force unaltered), to enjoin the production because

he had not approved of the play is doubtful.

      ,Second. The play itself is undoubtedly the property

of the Essanay Film Manufacturing Company, by which company

plaintiff was employed, and the circumstances of  plaintiff‘s

services in connection with the creation of the play distinguishes

the case from those cases which have applied the principle

of an author‘s exclusive right of literary property.

      ,Third. The facts do not  justify a claim that the association

of plaintiff‘s name with the play, as produced, amounts to a

fraud upon the public. A fair construction of the advertisements

of the play, is not that plaintiff is the author or producer,

but that he is the star or principal actor.

      ,Fourth. It is not claimed that so far as he is pictured in the

play his part is garbled or distorted. Whatever of him is

shown is a truthful representation. Whether plaintiff‘s contract

rights reserved to him rather than to his employer the sole

privilege of determining what of his pictures shall be incorporated

into the play produced, is at least doubtful.

      ,Fifth. Whether plaintiff will suffer any damage from the

production is problematical, while an injunction is certain to work

loss for defendants.‘

      This opinion, it would seem, decisively disposes of Chaplin‘s

contest against his former employers, but it does not absolve

him from further sessions with courts. As a result of the suit brought

by William M. Seabury, attorney for the Essanay Company

in Los Angeles, on May 18, he will have to answer to an action

to recover $500,000 damages brought by the Essanay

Company, as previously outlines in these columns.“

      Supreme Court of the state of New York.

      Essanay‘s Carmen Fake.

Redaktioneller Inhalt

 Charlie Chaplin´s Burlesque on Carmen   next   previous