## Facts

- Otto Preminger produced and directed the motion picture *Anatomy of a Murder*.
- Carlyle Productions, Inc. owned the rights to the film and entered into a series of distribution agreements with Columbia Pictures Corporation.
- The agreements gave Preminger and Carlyle “final cut” control over the film as released theatrically.
- The contract language granting television exhibition rights did not expressly address cutting, editing, or interruption of the film during broadcast.
- Screen Gems, Inc., a Columbia subsidiary, handled television distribution connected to the telecast of the film.
- Preminger and Carlyle objected to planned television cuts (such as trims for time or standards) and to commercial interruptions, alleging these would reduce the film’s artistic and commercial value and harm Preminger’s professional reputation.
- Columbia and Screen Gems presented evidence that minor cuts—often to accommodate time slots and commercials—were the prevailing practice in the television industry when motion pictures were broadcast.

## Issues

1. Whether a grant of television rights, silent on editing and commercial interruptions, permits the distributor to make minor edits and insert commercial breaks consistent with standard television practice.
2. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to an injunction barring any television cutting or commercial interruption based on alleged harm to artistic value and the director’s reputation.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New York, New York County, denied injunctive relief and entered judgment for Columbia and Screen Gems, dismissing the complaint on the merits.
- The court treated the “final cut” language as governing the theatrical version and declined to read it as a restriction on television exhibition where the television-rights provisions contained no comparable limitation.
- Relying on proof of established television practice, the court concluded that minor cuts and commercial interruptions were within the scope of a television-rights grant unless the contract clearly provided otherwise.
- The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed without opinion.
- The New York Court of Appeals affirmed by memorandum.

## Legal Principles

- When sophisticated parties grant television exhibition rights without express limits on cutting or interruption, the license is construed to allow the ordinary incidents of television broadcast, including minor edits and commercial breaks.
- A contractual “final cut” right for theatrical release is not extended to television exhibition absent clear language giving the licensor control over television edits.
- Evidence of trade usage and industry practice may be used to interpret the scope of rights conveyed when contract terms are silent on a disputed point.
- Equitable relief will not issue to bar television exhibition where the challenged changes are the type ordinarily required for broadcast and the contract does not reserve approval rights; courts are more likely to consider relief only if a showing is made of extreme alteration that materially distorts the work.

## Conclusion

*Preminger v. Columbia Pictures Corp.* held that plaintiffs who granted television rights to a film without expressly reserving control over television cutting and commercial interruption could not obtain an injunction to prevent standard television edits and ad breaks, especially where industry practice showed such changes were expected; the defendants therefore could proceed with television exhibition as contemplated by the license, and the denials of injunctive relief were affirmed on appeal.


Preminger v. Columbia Pictures Corp., 267 N.Y.S.2d 594 (1966), aff'd, 269 N.Y.S.2d 913, aff'd, 18 N.Y.2d 659 (1966)