## Facts

- Alexandre Dumas’s novel *The Count of Monte Cristo* was in the public domain.
- Charles Fechter prepared an English-language stage dramatization based on the novel and performed it; a copy was filed in England for licensing purposes.
- James O’Neill later acquired “all rights” in the dramatization from a prior U.S. rights holder and performed it for decades.
- In 1912, O’Neill authorized Famous Players to produce a motion-picture adaptation of his dramatization; the film was publicly exhibited and received a statutory copyright.
- In 1913, General Film distributed a separate motion picture of *The Count of Monte Cristo*, claiming it was based only on the novel.
- O’Neill sued, alleging General Film copied protectable scenes and dramatic arrangements found in the dramatization but not in the novel; the trial court enjoined General Film and awarded damages.

## Issues

1. Whether General Film’s motion picture copied protectable elements of the Fechter/O’Neill dramatization rather than drawing only from the public-domain novel.
2. Whether O’Neill sufficiently proved ownership of the common-law copyright in the dramatization.
3. Whether prior acts (public performances, photographs, English regulatory filing, and the authorized 1912 film) constituted “publication” that extinguished common-law rights.
4. If publication occurred, whether common-law protection survived for any portion of the dramatization.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division agreed that General Film copied distinctive dramatic material from the dramatization and did not rely solely on the novel.
- The court held O’Neill’s proof of chain of title, though incomplete, was sufficient to support standing and a presumption of ownership as against General Film.
- The court held that public performances, related photographs, and the English licensing deposit did not amount to a general publication divesting common-law rights.
- The court held that the authorized 1912 motion picture operated as a publication of the portions of the dramatization embodied in that film, extinguishing common-law rights as to those used portions while leaving possible common-law protection for portions not used.
- The judgment was affirmed as to copying and ownership but modified to limit the scope of O’Neill’s common-law protection in light of the authorized film’s publishing effect.

## Legal Principles

- Copying may be inferred where a defendant adopts original dramatic selection, arrangement, and scenes present in a plaintiff’s dramatization but absent from the underlying public-domain source.
- A plaintiff may establish a rebuttable presumption of ownership of common-law rights through historical transfers and industry practice even if documentation is imperfect, absent stronger contrary proof.
- Public performance of an unpublished dramatic work does not, by itself, constitute publication that forfeits common-law copyright.
- Limited deposits made for regulatory purposes (such as a licensing/censorship filing) do not necessarily constitute general publication that destroys common-law rights in another jurisdiction.
- An authorized, publicly exhibited derivative motion picture can be treated as publishing the underlying dramatic expression it embodies, extinguishing common-law protection only as to the portions used, while leaving protection potentially intact for unused portions.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that General Film copied protectable elements of O’Neill’s dramatization, but it limited O’Neill’s common-law copyright by treating the authorized 1912 motion picture as a publication of the dramatization’s portions incorporated into that film, leaving only any unused portions potentially protected at common law.


O’Neill v. Gen. Film Co., 171 A.D. 854 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 1916)