81
II. RIGHTS
It is clear that to give screen credit to a person not reasonably entitled thereto would be a fraud
upon the public, while, on the other hand, to deny the author his contract rights if the play
produced is based upon his story would be a violation of the contract.
In view of these conflicting considerations, it is clear that, in construing the terms of the contract
for screen credit, some attention must be given to the question as to whether or not the giving of
such credit to a play which has been substantially changed would in effect be a falsehood tending
to deceive the public. ... Granting then ... that the changes in the plaintiff ’s story were made,
not for the purpose of defrauding the plaintiff of his property, but for the purpose of adding to
the interest and profit of the story, the question is, has the story been so far departed from in the
play that it cannot reasonably be said to be based upon the plaintiff ’s story, having due regard to
the rights of the plaintiff to credit for his achievement in producing the story, and the right of the
public not to be deceived by reason of credit falsely given to an author.
- MORAL RIGHTS PRINCIPLES MAY AFFECT THE INTERPRETATION
OF CONTRACTS DEALING WITH COPYRIGHT WORKS
EXAMPLE 1:
The plaintiff historian wrote and delivered to the defendant publisher a
manuscript for a series depicting the lives of Makers of Canada. The defendant
was not satisfied with the manuscript and refused either to publish it or to return
the plaintiff’s sole copy, even though the plaintiff tendered back the money the
defendant had paid him as an advance. The plaintiff successfully sued to
recover the manuscript.
Morang & Co. v. Lesueur, (1911) 45 S.C.R. 95 (Canada: Supreme Court)
CHIEF JUSTICE FITZPATRICK:
[The evidence reveals] a tacit agreement to publish the manuscript, if accepted; and, the
manuscript having been rejected as unsuitable for the purpose for which it was intended, no
property in it passed and the respondent was entitled to ask that the contract be rescinded and
the manuscript returned upon the repayment of the money consideration which he had received.
I cannot agree that the sale of the manuscript of a book is subject to the same rules as the sale
of any other article of commerce, e.g., paper, grain or lumber. The vendor of such things loses
all dominion over them when once the contract is executed and the purchaser may deal with the
thing which he has purchased as he chooses. It is his to keep, to alienate or to destroy. But it will
not be contended that the publisher who bought the manuscript of The Life of Gladstone, by
Morley, or of Cromwell by the same author, might publish the manuscript, having paid the author
his price, with such emendations or additions as might perchance suit his political or religious
views and give them to the world as those of one of the foremost publicists of our day. Nor could
the author be denied by the publisher the right to make corrections, in dates or otherwise, if such
corrections were found to be necessary for historical accuracy; nor could the manuscript be
published in the name of another. After the author has parted with his pecuniary interest in the
manuscript, he retains a species of personal or moral right in the product of his brain. ...
