This article examines Hollywood’s attempts to curtail print duplication piracy in Bombay during the 1920s. The Thief of Bagdad, starring Douglas Fairbanks, was a massive international success for the Hollywood studio United Artists and their newly established Asian distribution network. Perhaps the most famous Hollywood release in India, Thief catapulted its star, Douglas Fairbanks, into the pantheon of Indian screen legends. In the late 1920s, United Artists discovered that Thief was being illegally distributed and exhibited in India and filed a series of legal actions in the Bombay courts. This article examines the extensive legal record of these cases—alongside letters, memos, and other studio correspondence—in order to reveal the topography of international distribution and its legal and non-legal circuits. We argue that Hollywood’s problems in curtailing the so-called “Bombay piracies” demonstrate the contradictions of international intellectual property enforcement at a critical early juncture in media globalization.
Amusements. (1925, July4). The Times of India, p. 9.
2.
BaggotK. (Director). (1927). Down the stretch [Motion picture]. USA: English.
3.
BalioT. (1976). United Artists: The company built by the stars: Vol. 1. 1919–1950. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
4.
BarnouwE.KrishnaswamyS. (1980). Indian film. New York: Oxford University Press.
5.
Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. (1886/1896). Paris, France. Retrieved from http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/1896_additional_acts_and_Interpretative_declaration.pdf (accessed on April 25, 2014).
6.
BhaumikK. (2002). The emergence of the Bombay film industry, 1913–1936. Ph.D. Dissertation, Oxford.
7.
BhushanN. (2012, March14). MPAA Chairman Chris Dodd pushes for Indian film industry to fight against piracy. The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved from http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/chris-dodd-ficci-frames-2012-mpaa-chairman-299510 (accessed on April 25, 2014).
8.
BowserE. (1990). The transformation of cinema, 1907–1915. Berkeley: University of California Press.
9.
Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce Reports. (1923). Film Yearbook 1922–1923. New York: Wid’s Films and Film Folks, Inc.
10.
ChowdhuryP. (2000). Colonial India and the making of empire cinema: Image, ideology and identity. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
11.
Consent Decree. (1930, 16July). High Court of Judicature at Bombay.
12.
CrispD. (Director). (1925). Don Q Son of Zorro [Motion picture]. USA: English.
13.
DecherneyP. (2007). Copyright dupes: Piracy and new media in Edison V. Lubin (1903). Film History, 19(2), 109–124.
14.
DwanA. (Director). (1922). Robin Hood [Motion picture]. USA: English.
15.
Estimates Place Piracy Losses at $300 Million to India’s Film Industry. (1984, September19). Variety.
16.
Film Company in Trouble. (1927, November11). Times of India, p. 14.
17.
FitzmauriceG. (Director). (1926). The Son of the Sheik [Motion picture]. USA: English.
18.
FlemingV. (Director). (1920). The Mollycoddle [Motion picture]. USA: English.
19.
Foreign Field Better. (1922, July7). The Film Daily, p. 4.
20.
GainesJ. M. (2006). Early cinema’s heyday of copying: The too many copies of l’arroseur arrosé (the waterer watered). Cultural Studies, 20(2), 227–244.
21.
GovilN. (2004). War in the age of pirate reproduction. In VasudevanR.SundaramR.BagchiJ.NarulaM.SenguptaS.LovinkG. (Eds), Sarai reader 04: Crisis/media (pp. 378–383). New Delhi: Sarai/Center for the Study of Developing Societies/Society for New and Old Media.
22.
GrayH.Gómez-BarrisM. (Eds). (2010). Towards a sociology of the trace. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
23.
HaniffaA. (1989, April7). Hollywood accuses India of piracy. India Abroad, p. 34l.
24.
HilderbrandL. (2009). Inherent vice: Bootleg histories of videotape and copyright. Durham: Duke University Press.
25.
HughesS. (2003). Pride of place. Seminar, 525.
26.
India Deal on. (1927, June23). The Film Daily, p. 1.
27.
Indian Cinematograph Committee Report, 1927–28. (1928). Madras: Government of India.
28.
Indian Films Gain. (1925, October14). The Film Daily, p. 2.
29.
KapseA. (2014). Around the world in eighty minutes: Douglas Fairbanks and the Indian stunt film. In BeanJ.KapseA.HorakL. (Eds), Border crossings: Silent cinema and the politics of space (pp. 210–234). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
30.
LarkinB. (2004). Degraded images, distorted sounds: Nigerian video and the infrastructure of piracy. Public Culture, 16(2), 289–314.
31.
LarkinB. (2010). Circulating empires: Colonial authority and the immoral, subversive problem of American film. In EdwardsB. T.GoankerD. (Eds), Globalizing American studies (pp. 155–183). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
32.
LiangL. (2005). Porous legalities and avenues of participation. In NarulaM.SenguptaS.BagchiJ.LovinkG.LiangL. (Eds), Sarai reader 5: Bare acts (pp. 6–17). New Delhi: Sarai/Center for the Study of Developing Societies/Society for New and Old Media.
33.
LiangL. (2008). Piracy, creativity, and infrastructure: Rethinking access to culture. Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=1436229 (accessed on April 25, 2014).
34.
LiangL. (2010). Beyond representation: The figure of the pirate. In KrikorianG.KapczynskiA. (Eds), Access to knowledge in the age of intellectual property (pp. 353–376). New York: Zone Books.
35.
LobatoR. (2012). Shadow economies of cinema: Mapping informal film distribution. London: BFI/Palgrave MacMillan.
36.
Madan’s Offer. (1927, May10). The Film Daily, p. 2.
37.
MajumdarN. (2009). Wanted: Cultured ladies only! Female stardom and cinema in India, 1930s–1950s. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.
38.
MalloyM. (1974, September5). India: Hollywood of world. Los Angeles Times, p. 114.
39.
Motion Pictures in India. (1928, April15). New York Times, p.118.
40.
Move to Displace American Films in India; Princes Offer $5,000,000 to Aid British Output. (1926, September13). New York Times, p. 1.
41.
NairJ. (2011). Mysore modern: Rethinking the region under princely rule. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
NimmerM. B. (1967). Implications of the prospective revision of the Berne Convention and the United States copyright law. Stanford Law Review, 19(3), 499–554.
44.
NorthC. J. (1926). Our foreign trade in motion pictures. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science: The Motion Picture in Its Economic and Social Aspects, 128, 100–106.
45.
PatelS. (2003). Bombay and Mumbai: Identities, politics, and populism. In PatelS.MasselosJ. (Eds), Bombay and Mumbai: The city in transition (pp. 3–30). Delhi: Oxford University Press.
46.
RajadhyakshaA. (1988). International seminar on the production and distribution of films in developing countries. UNESCO Report CC-88/WS/2920.
47.
RajadhyakshaA. (2006). The curious case of Bombay’s Hindi cinema: The career of indigenous “exhibition”. Journal of the Moving Image, 5, 7–40.
48.
React Against U.S. (1926, July26). The Film Daily, p. 1.
49.
ReedT. (Director). (1921). The Nut [Motion picture]. USA: English.
50.
Report of the Indian Cinematograph Committee, 1927–28. (1928). Madras: Government Press.
51.
SaidE. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Pantheon.
52.
Saint-AmourP. K. (2003). The copywrights: Intellectual property and the literary imagination. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
53.
Saint-AmourP. K. (2011). Introduction and the lives of copyright. In Saint-AmourP. K. (Ed.), Modernism & copyright (pp. 1–38). New York: Oxford University Press.
54.
SchwartzH. (1996). The culture of the copy: Striking likenesses, unreasonable facsimiles. New York: Zone Books.
55.
SenHiralal. (Director). (1903). Ali Baba [Motion picture]. USA: English.
56.
SenguptaS. (2005). Reflected readings in available light: Cameramen in the shadows of Hindi cinema. In KaurR.SinhaA. J. (Eds), Bollyworld: Popular Indian cinema through a transnational lens (pp. 118–142). New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
57.
ShahP. (1981). The Indian film. Westport: Greenwood Press.
58.
SharmaB. D. (2004, May25). Madan Theatre Ltd: Knowing the company better. Sarai Research Fellowship Posting.
59.
SundaramR. (2010). Pirate modernity: Delhi’s media urbanism. London: Routledge.
60.
ThomasR. (2005). Not Quite (Pearl) White: Fearless Nadia, queen of the stunts. In KaurR.SinhaA. J. (Eds), Bollyworld: Popular Indian cinema through a transnational lens (pp. 35–69). New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
61.
ThomasR. (2014). Bombay before Bollywood: Film city fantasies. New Delhi, India: Orient BlackSwan.
62.
ThompsonK. (1985). Exporting entertainment: America in the world film market, 1907–1934. London: British Film Institute.
63.
To Decide Film Copyright. (1928, August19). New York Times, p. 4.
64.
United Artists Collection, Series 2A—O’Brien legal file, box 79, Mss 99AN record group II, Wisconsin Center for Film and Theater Research.
65.
VitaliV. (2008). Hindi action cinema: Industries, narratives, bodies. New York: Oxford University Press.
66.
WadiaJ. B. H. (1980). Those were the days. Cinema Vision India: The Indian Journal of Cinematic Art, 1(1), 91–99.
67.
WalshM. D. (1998). The internationalism of the American cinema; The establishment of United Artists’ foreign distribution operations Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
68.
WalshR. (Director). (1924). The Thief of Bagdad [Motion picture]. USA: English.
69.
WeeksE. L. (1890, August). Street life in India. Harper’s New Monthly Magazine, p. 455.
