Burns v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation

75 F. Supp. 986, 76 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 515, 1948 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3047
CourtDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts
DecidedFebruary 27, 1948
DocketCiv. 7070
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 75 F. Supp. 986 (Burns v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Burns v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation, 75 F. Supp. 986, 76 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 515, 1948 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3047 (D. Mass. 1948).

Opinion

WYZANSKI, District Judge.

This suit is before me on plaintiff’s claim of infringement of copyright by defendant. Plaintiff is the author of a novel, Angel *987 On Horseback, which he wrote between Christmas 1944 and the summer of 1945. He published it on November 7, 1945. He filed with the copyright office an affidavit of publication on January 29, 1946 and copies of his book on February 13, 1946.

Defendant thereafter published a motion picture, Miracle on Thirty-Fourth .Street. Plaintiff claims that this publication infringes his copyright.

I find as a fact that the substance of the motion picture was derived from a manuscript which Valentine Davies prepared and submitted to defendant at least as early as July 1945 before plaintiff had finished his book or shown it to any representative of defendant.

I find that there is no credible evidence that at the time of preparing or publishing the motion picture defendant had actual access to or had ever heard of plaintiff’s book. For that reason alone plaintiff’s suit should be dismissed.

But there is further and convincing evidence that I feel bound to recite in order to save time for a higher court if there should be an appeal which persuades me that even if there has been access, there has been no copying of plaintiff’s book. This further evidence is in the plot, atmosphere, character, incidents and dialog of the book and the movie. Neither in whole nor in part, nor in outline nor detail was there any copying as appears from the following summaries of the novel and the movie.

The novel, An Angel on Horseback, is a conventionalized story of a romance between young Doctor James O’Farrell, of Irish Catholic extraction, and Greta Ed-lund, of Swedish Protestant extraction. The doctor, a San Franciscan, is at the start of the story an interne in a Los Angel-es hospital to which for a superficial injury Greta has been brought for treatment. He falls in love with her at first sight but is cautioned by his friend, Dr. Duke, to remember that love may interfere with his professional career. The main theme of the novel is the development of the love story to the happy climax customary in American literature of this genre. Athwart the destined road stand certain obstacles of which the most prominent are the doctor’s medical career, the competition of a Lt. Anderson for Greta’s hand and the difference of religion between Jimmy and Greta — a barrier overcome at the end by Greta’s announcement that she has been secretly converted to the Roman Catholic Church.

To appreciate the scope and atmosphere of the story it is important to state its background. The situs of the novel is in Los Angeles and in surrounding Southern California territory. This gives the author opportunities to describe the good and bad points of the community. There are graphic pictures of the city of Los Angeles itself, its attractive places, such as the Union Station and the Planetarium, the neighborhoods in which minorities live and the countryside as far away as the beautiful cities of Pascdena and Palm Springs and the difficult trails ascending Mt. Wilson. The author includes in the novel his reflections on the mores of the community. He writes of the sophistication of the young, the divorce rate of the mature, the godless teaching in the schools, the to him absurd Republican view that Americans could have two cars in every garage, the to him equally absurd Democratic view that Americans can afford milk for the starving East Europeans, and the social intimacy but differences in outlook between persons of Irish and of Jewish origin. It is against this background (which of course is disclosed not at once but in stages) that the story develops.

On coming from Minnesota to her aunt in Los Angeles, Greta had first sought a moving picture career. She quickly turned to the steadier employment offered in a “better class” retail store, Pollard’s oil Wil-shire Boulevard. The manager, not the owner, is Mr. McNabb, a “screwy looking ape”, troubled by ulcers, disagreeable to all the employees, sadistic toward alcoholics and others who are young, timid, or undersized (p. 106), irascible to those in his power, cringing toward customers who complain of salesgirls and possessed of illusions as to his powers of detection. Among the store employees are the pleasant companion of Greta’s office, Ann Thomas, and two men in the men’s furnishing department, who go by the nicknames “Profit” and “Loss.” The former’s real name is “Bill” Henry, and he is the more interesting since *988 his waggish pranks and his love of humor, dancing and liquor as well as his willingness to stand up on occasion to McNabb furnish a comic relief from the main plot

One day, after Greta has been employed in Pollard’s, she goes out horseback riding. Her horse is struck by a golf ball hit by one of the foursome in which Jimmy O’Farrell is playing. This serves as a further impetus to the romance and gives the novel its title, “An Angel on Horseback.” Scenes which follow at various intervals and which need not be set forth now in correct sequence show O’Farrell borrowing a friend’s Buick, calling on Greta and her aunt, learning of a supposed rival, Lt. Anderson, taking Greta to the neighborhood of the Planetarium and eventually kissing Greta.

In the middle of the course of true love occurs the passage at pages 68-74 on which this suit is principally founded. Pollard’s a few weeks before Christmas arranged to have a temporary toy department and engaged a number of temporary employees including a man to act as Santa Claus. The Santa Claus and the salesman, Profit, start drinking while they are at work. They constantly increase their degree of intoxication by retiring at frequent intervals to the men’s room “to brush their teeth.” After imbibing to excess, Santa asks Greta to sit on his knee and simultaneously inquires what she wants. She to quiet him asks for a new typewriter and a horse to ride. Santa says she has the prettiest eyes. Eventually he lets her hand go and thus releases Greta for her job. Shortly afterwards Profit starts to play “catch” by throwing footballs to boys. Then both Santa and Profit distribute toys free to children in the store. As the author says, “The toy department, a temporary one, was set up primarily by ‘Pollard’s’, as a service to the dear little kiddies, not as a sales promotion for profit, dear no, after all Christmas did belong to the children, didn’t Pollard’s say so in their institutional publicity?” (p. 71) Suddenly Mc-Nabb and the display manager learn in a general way of the goings-on. Greta to prevent McNabb from discovering Profit’s participation, notifies Mr. Earle of the furnishing department to get Profit out of the way. Profit escapes from the store in Santa’s suit; McNabb fires the drunken Santa.

There are some other department store scenes later in the book, but no serious charge of infringement of copyright rests upon them.

In one of those scenes a Latin-American gigolo, Carlos Alfonso, selects a large assortment of merchandise which Profit as salesman offers him. Profit, anxious for the salesman’s commission assures Alfonso he can continue his purchasing confident that his automobile will not be tagged by the police while it is stationed on the Wilshire Boulevard or that if it is tagged McNabb will fix it up with the police. The car is tagged and McNabb is put out with Profit for getting him involved, but McNabb does not discharge Profit. •

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Sisson
294 F. Supp. 520 (D. Massachusetts, 1968)
Costello v. Loew's Incorporated
159 F. Supp. 782 (District of Columbia, 1958)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
75 F. Supp. 986, 76 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 515, 1948 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3047, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burns-v-twentieth-century-fox-film-corporation-mad-1948.