MOVING PICTURES. A moving picture and vaudeville show, including comedy sing ers and dancers, etc., is not a theatrical en tertainment; Com. v. Donnelly, 21 Pa. Dist. R. 21; moving picture shows are not theatri cal performances; 15 Can. Cr. Cas. 241; nor public shows ; Edwards v. McClellan, 118 N. Y. Supp. 181; Slate v. Chamberlain, 112 Minn. 52, 127 N. W. 444, 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 335, 21 Ann. Cas. 679; exhibition of moving pictures in a hotel, with no charge for adniis sion, is not the conducting a common show without a license; People v. Wacke, 77 Misc. 196, 137 N. Y. Supp. 652. An ordinance im posing a license fee on kinetoscopes, pano ramas, etc., covers moving pictures; Laurelle v. Bush, 17 Cal. App. 409, 119 Pac. 953; but not one prohibiting the opening of billiard rooms, baseball grounds and other places of amusement on Sunday ; Clinton v. Wilson, 257 Ill. 580, 101 N. E. 192.
The regulation of moving picture shows is a proper exercise of the police power ; In re Whitten, 152 App. Div. 506, 137 N. Y. Supp.
360. An Ohio city cannot under the 1912 constitution, lay taxes to carry on the busi ness ; State v. Lynch (Ohio) 102 N. E. 670.
The registered trademark of a periodical ("Nick Carter") is not infringed by the use of "Nick Carter" as the name of a character in a moving picture; Atlas Mfg. Co. v. Street, 204 Fed. 398, 122 C. C. A. 568; but moving pictures and dramatization are cognate forms of reproduction and a copyright of the latter includes the former ; An exhibition of a series of photographs of persons and things arranged on films as moving pictures, and so depicting the princi pal scenes of an author's work as to tell the story, is a dramatization of such work and the person producing the films and offering them for sale for exhibitions, even if not himself exhibiting them, infringes the copy right of the author ; Kalem Co. v. Harper Bros., 222 U. S. 55, 32 Sup. Ct. 20, 56 L. Ed. 92, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 1285.