Kalem Company v. Harper Brothers

Supreme Court of the United States
222 U.S. 55, 32 S. Ct. 20 (1911)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The creation and distribution of a motion picture based on a copyrighted novel constitutes an infringing dramatization, and the producer who sells the film with the intent of public exhibition is liable for contributory infringement.

Facts:

Harper Brothers held the copyright to General Lew Wallace's novel, 'Ben Hur.'
The Kalem Company, a motion picture producer, hired an employee to read 'Ben Hur' and write a scenario describing certain portions of the story.
Kalem Company then hired actors to perform the action described in the scenario and filmed these performances to create a motion picture.
The film depicted enough of the story to be easily identified as being from the novel 'Ben Hur.'
Kalem Company advertised the film under the title 'Ben Hur' and sold the film prints to third parties for public exhibition.

Procedural Posture:

Harper Brothers sued the Kalem Company for copyright infringement in the United States Circuit Court.
The case was heard on the pleadings and an agreed statement of facts.
The Circuit Court found for Harper Brothers and issued a decree restraining Kalem Company from the alleged infringement.
Kalem Company, as appellant, appealed the decree to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decree.
Kalem Company then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a company infringe the copyright of a novel by producing and selling a motion picture film that visually depicts scenes from the novel's story, with the intent that it be publicly exhibited?

Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Justice Holmes

Yes. The production and sale of a motion picture film based on a copyrighted novel is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive right to dramatize their work. The Copyright Act grants authors the exclusive right to dramatize their works, and a drama can be achieved through action alone, without spoken words, such as in a pantomime. A motion picture, which presents a story through the actions of performers, is a form of dramatization. The court reasoned that it makes no difference whether the audience sees the performance live on a stage or projected from a film; in both cases, they are seeing the 'story lived.' Therefore, Kalem Company's motion picture was an unauthorized dramatization of 'Ben Hur.' Furthermore, Kalem Company is liable for the infringement even though it only sold the films and did not publicly exhibit them. By creating the film and advertising it for the express purpose of public exhibition, Kalem Company contributed to the infringement and is therefore liable.

Analysis:

This landmark decision extended copyright protection to the new medium of motion pictures, establishing that a film adaptation is a form of 'dramatization' under copyright law. It solidified the principle that copyright protects not just the literal text, but also derivative works in different media that reproduce the story's expression. The case is also foundational for the doctrine of contributory copyright infringement, holding that a party who creates and sells an infringing article with the knowledge and intent that it will be used for an infringing purpose is liable, even if they do not perform the final infringing act themselves. This ruling profoundly shaped the business model of the nascent film industry, requiring studios to license the rights to literary works before adapting them.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Kalem Company v. Harper Brothers (1911)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature