There is, however, an independent basis for affirming the originality of the Course: as a literary work authored by Schucman. As the Urantia district court held, "Whether The Urantia Book is a divine revelation dictated by divine beings is irrelevant to the issue of whether the book is a literary work within the meaning of 17 U.S.C. § 102." Urantia Found. v. Maaherra, 895 F. Supp. 1337, 1338 (W.D. Ariz. 1995) ("Urantia III"). While the Ninth Circuit in Urantia did not affirm the district court on this basis -- relying instead on the "original fact compilation" theory -- the Nimmer treatise suggests that the district court's approach was better. See Urantia, 114 F.3d at 958; 1 Nimmer on Copyright § 2.11[C] at 2-172.22-23 (hereinafter "Nimmer"). Indeed, Nimmer cites to the English case Cummins v. Bond, [1927] 1 Ch. 167, "in which the plaintiff medium produced a contemporary account of the Apostles by engaging in "automatic writing" from a 1900-year-old spirit." Id. at § 2.11[D] n.24.4. The Chancery judge in Cummins noted that he lacked jurisdiction in "the sphere in which the [dead spirit] moves" and declined to hold that "authorship and copyright rest with some one already domiciled on the other side of the inevitable river." Id. (quoting Cummins, 1 Ch. 167, at 173).[1]
- ↑ The Court recognizes that Cummins is not fully on point here, as the "spirit" in this case -- Jesus -- has not been represented to be on the "other side of the river." Nevertheless, the similarities are rather apparent.
31
