This would be Gloria Stuart's final acting role until The Legend of Lizzie Borden (1975) and her final film until My Favorite Year (1982).
This film was the subject of a plagiarism case brought by Thomson Burtis against Universal Pictures Co., Inc., in 1951. (BURTIS v. UNIVERSAL PICTURES CO., Inc., et al. Civ. 18270. Decided: November 08, 1951.) In 1938, Burtis had submitted a story synopsis that Universal hired him to expand, paying him $250 for a story (or treatment) of not less than 10,000 words "suitable for a Danielle Darrieux photoplay" with a tentative title of "Manhattan Masquerade". Universal then had the option, within two weeks of delivery of the story, to buy it for $3,250. Burtis delivered a 59 page story manuscript of about 20,000 words.
Universal did not exercise the option, but retained both the original synopsis and the 59 page treatment in its files. Coverage of the synopsis and treatment were available to all writers and producers on the Universal lot until the lawsuit was filed.
While this film and the original story were quite different, they did have in common several plot elements: A scandalous book that was published under a pen name; a hoax to present the "real" author to the public, but that person is an impostor; a straitlaced love interest who wants nothing to do with a woman with the kind of scandalous past that could lead her to write such a book; and a happily ever after ending when all is revealed.
In the original case, in 1951, the jury found for Burtis.
In 1953, a higher California court reversed the decision, with one strong dissenting opinion from the panel of judges, and Burtis's request for a rehearing was denied. (BURTIS v. UNIVERSAL PICTURES CO., Inc. at al., L. A. 22215., Decided: April 29, 1953.)
Universal did not exercise the option, but retained both the original synopsis and the 59 page treatment in its files. Coverage of the synopsis and treatment were available to all writers and producers on the Universal lot until the lawsuit was filed.
While this film and the original story were quite different, they did have in common several plot elements: A scandalous book that was published under a pen name; a hoax to present the "real" author to the public, but that person is an impostor; a straitlaced love interest who wants nothing to do with a woman with the kind of scandalous past that could lead her to write such a book; and a happily ever after ending when all is revealed.
In the original case, in 1951, the jury found for Burtis.
In 1953, a higher California court reversed the decision, with one strong dissenting opinion from the panel of judges, and Burtis's request for a rehearing was denied. (BURTIS v. UNIVERSAL PICTURES CO., Inc. at al., L. A. 22215., Decided: April 29, 1953.)