Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

A new look at old history – the Kinetoscope: Fraud and market development in Britain in 1895

2012; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 10; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/17460654.2012.729714

1746-0662

Matthew A. Brown,

Art History and Market Analysis

Abstract Thomas Edison’s Kinetoscope was the first practical and commercially viable method of film exhibition. Its history in Britain has not, however, been well documented. Two complicating factors have been a previous over-reliance placed on an incomplete and misleading account by Robert Paul (1869–1943), and a failure by film historians to appreciate the central role of the contemporary phonograph business in the commercial development of the Kinetoscope. The opportunity to take a fresh look at circumstances surrounding its introduction into Britain, and the fraudulent attempt to copy it, is now possible due to the location by the author of a contemporary record of a hitherto unknown legal case. A full transcript of this document is given in the appendix. This article briefly examines the characteristics of the commercial context affecting the UK Kinetoscope business in early 1895, noting the development of niche markets, competition, price trends, and the financial viability of Kinetoscope exhibition. Keywords: Kinetoscopeearly British cinemabusiness historyThomas EdisonRobert Paul Acknowledgement With grateful thanks to Simon Popple for the care taken in the preparation of this account, especially the Court transcript. Notes 1. Hendricks Citation1966, 110–15. Spehr (2008, 318 –9) gives details of Maguire’s somewhat restless career and his previous business relationship with other Edison products. 2. The London selling price of £70 implies an exchange rate of $4.3 to the pound, which was about 10% less than the actual rate at the time. 3. As a comparison to these optimistic figures, the actual worldwide sales figure for all Kinetoscopes, from 1 April l894 to 28 February 1895, was $149,549 (Musser Citation1990, 84). 4. In his various accounts, Paul never gave the date of his initial meeting with the Greeks, nor the exact date when production of the pirated machines was begun; he stated (1936, p. 42) that he had only produced six machines before the end of 1894, so it seems unlikely that Maguire would have been aware of them until early January l895. 5. Baucus to Edison, 19 January 1895 (ENHS 135/867). 6. The coincidental date of 14 January, when Rosenthal visited Hough and the Tonkins also visited the Greeks, was no doubt a strategy of Maguire’s intended to prevent the suspected parties from exchanging information or warning each other about the visits. 7. For information on Young, see Andrews (Citation1986) and Anthony (Citation2012). By the time he became involved with the Kinetoscope, Young already had two phonograph injunctions against him, and had removed himself to Amsterdam, as Holland had no patent laws at that time. He filed for bankruptcy on 26 February 1895. 8. The front cover is reproduced in Barnes Citation1998, 6. 9. Hough is not mentioned by Barnes (Citation1998). Edison was under the impression – probably from misunderstanding what Maguire had told him – that it was Hough who ‘is the pirate who is infringing and making “bogus” Kinetoscopes in Europe’ (Edison to Seligman and Seligman, 28 February 1895; ENHS 143/731). There were also suggestions that Edison’s attorneys, Dyer and Seeley, had been helping Hough in his case against Edison Bell. This would not be an impossible situation, given Edison’s dislike of Stephen Moriarty, the managing director of Edison Bell, who believed that Edison was conniving at the illegal importation of phonographs into England. Andrews (1986, 22–7) gives details of the English phonograph infringement cases that Hough was involved in. Andrews is one of the few media historians to recognize the value of legal records as primary source material. I have previously drawn attention (Brown 1996, 241) to the wealth of material of this class that is available to early film historians. 10. Rossell Citation1999. 11. The most comprehensive, if rather hagiographic, account of Paul’s connection with cinematography is Barnes’ series, The Beginnings of the Cinema in England 1894–1901 (1998). 12. Talbot (1912, 34–5). 13. The Electrical Review, 8 March 1895, 536. 14. The Electrician, 20 November 1891, 74. 15. ENHS 159/636. 16. See Brown Citation2000, 109–10. 17. [London] Evening News and Post, 24 October 1894, 4. 18. This was the case of Auguste Lumière and Louis Lumière vs The Anglo Continental Phonograph Company and Ernest O Kumberg (Chancery L.696 of March 1896). See also related document NA. J4/5205/593. The action was strictly based on the infringement of British Patent 7187 of April 1895, but in actuality it was a ‘passing-off’ case. For a brief summary of British film market behaviour between 1895 and 1900, in which different price elasticity patterns for cine-equipment, and for films, are noted, see Brown and Anthony Citation1999, 13–23. 19. It should be noted that a ‘passing-off’ case was essentially different from a related intel- lectual property action alleging infringement of copyright, patent, or trademark. Since this type of case involved an invasion of property, it was punishable as a crime against property, whereas passing-off was actionable instead on the basis of collateral damage done to personal and/or commercial reputation – often involving consequential financial loss – by deceit and fraud. Unlike intellectual property, infringement of which could, by definition, only affect the owner of the property, passing-off could also adversely affect third parties due to the misrepresentation involved. Therefore, although the regulatory role of the Court was similar in both types of action, and was directed towards the prevention of further abuse and the punishment of the offender, an injunction in a ‘passing off’ case was recognized by Judges to extend the protection of the Court to the public generally, in addition to the plaintiff specifically. 20. The examination of witnesses in this case occupied four days, and Edward Hume claimed a total of £10.6 6d as payment for his work.