This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2011)Buzz BuzzardWoody Woodpecker characterWoody-wet-blanket-policy.jpgBuzz Buzzard with Woody Woodpecker in his debut in 1948's Wet Blanket Policy.First appearance Wet Blanket PolicyCreated by Walter LantzPortrayed by Lionel Stander (1948-1949)Dallas McKennon (1950-1972)Daws Butler (in "Spook-A-Nanny")Mark Hamill (1999-2002) Jess Harnell (film)InformationSpecies ...
Movie studios previously charged low rents to exhibitors because they were owned by the studio. When the studios were forced to sell th
tion, he rejected the studios' argument that it was necessary to profit from their copyrights: "The copyright law, like the patent statutes, makes reward to the owner a secondary consideration".[10] The prohibitions on discrimination he let stand entirely.Frankfurter[edit]Frankfurter took exception to the extent to which his brethren had agreed with the studios that the District Court had not adequately explored the underlying facts in affirming the consent decree. He pointed to another recent Court decision, International Salt Co. v. United States (332 U.S. 392 (1947)) that lower courts are the...
The Court ruled 7-1 in the government's favor, affir
these requirements.[3] The film industry did not satisfactorily meet the requirements of the consent decree, forcing the government to reinstate the lawsuit—as promised—three years later, in 1943. The case went to trial—with now all of the Big Eight as defendants—on October 8, 1945, months after the end of World War II.[4]The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 1948. The verdict went against the movie studios, forcing all of them to divest themselves of their movie theater chains. In addition to Paramount, RKO Radio Pictures, Inc., Loew's, 20th Century-Fox Film Corporation, Columbia Pictures...
or potential violations under the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. The major film studios owned the theaters where their motion pictures were shown, either in partnerships or outright and complete. Thus specific theater chains showed only the films produced by the studio that owned them. The studios created the films, had the writers, directors, producers and actors on staff ("un
[citation needed] The Court held in this case that the existing distribution scheme was in violation of the antitrust laws of the United States, which prohibit certain exclusive dealing arrangements.The case is important both in U.S. antitrust law and film history. In the former, it remains a landmark decision in vertical integration cases; in the latter, it is seen as the first nail in the coffin of the old Hollywood studio system.Contents [hide] 1 Background2 Decision2.1 Douglas2.2 Frankfurter3 Consequences4 See also5 ReferencesBackground[edit]The legal issues originated in the silent...
