Talk:A Course in Miracles

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Information about this edition
Edition: 1975, 1e
Source: — public domain version
Contributor(s): To become a known contributor, please add your name below.
Level of progress: Text, Workbook and Manual for Teachers have been proofread. 100 percent.svg
Notes: For proof of Public Domain see #Full text of the court judgement "Based upon the facts as found above and the conclusions of law just set forth, judgment will be entered dismissing the complaint and granting judgment invalidating the copyright with costs to the defendants." New York, NY _________________________ October 24, 2003 ROBERT W. SWEET U.S.D.J. page 32 of 32 of the judgement

Working Link to Copyright Ruling 9/16/16

Editors: Please mind established wikification conventions. Be creative on formatting for the Workbook and the Manual For Teachers, or if those already have format templates, then use those.


Proofreaders: Coursian

Action Plan?[edit]

Perhaps there should be some sort of action plan.

I'm not a copyright lawyer, but it could include something like: Attempt to contact people to see whether is in violation of copyrights. If it is discerned that it is not, or after appropriate efforts, no definitive answer can be acquired, then we should go ahead and transfer the text at over to Wiki Source.

Something should be done.

Ironing out copyright questions on placing a copy of ACIM in Wikisource[edit]

This text appears not to be from the undisputed JCIM edition of ACIM. If so, it may be in copyright violation. It seems to me that this matter needs to be fully addressed before this article should be allowed to progress any further.

-Scottperry 16:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. I won't remove the text entirely since you've contributed, but I'll start over minimally with the JCIM edition once I have a more complete understanding of the copyrights still in effect. If you would like to help, I encourage it. I was posting it here trusting's assertion that their version was wholly in the public domain. It is, as you say, so close to FIP's second edition published work that it deserves further enquiry. Antireconciler 20:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think that FACIM has yet given permission for the 2nd edition to be fully published (including the numbering system and the changes made after the 1st edition) and I doubt that they will.

Suggestion: Stick with the first edition, and just to triple cover yourself, do the following three things, which I would be willing to help you with if you wanted.

  1. Write and send a snailmail letter to FACIM stating that you are planning to upload the 1st edition to Wikiquote at some time in the near future, unless you might happen to receive any requests from them, asking for you to refrain. Also note in this letter that you would certainly gladly receive and consider any stylistic considerations that they might have for this upload as well. Write this letter in a spirit of mutual respect and cooperation. I've been in contact with them about some of the published facts found in the main Wiki ACIM article, and I have found them to be very helpful.
  2. If you don't hear anything back from them, which you may not, then after 30 or 40 days from the time you write this letter, post a copy of this letter on an internet site as proof, and then do the uploading of the first edition to Wikiquote. (If you might happen to hear back from them, then simply follow their legal advice to remain within the bounds of the remaining copyrights.)
  3. Once this process is all over, also post a copy of the published FACIM discussion about what is and what is not copyrighted in an associated page on the same internet site as the copy of the letter, and also, perhaps if there is feedback from FACIM, a summary of that interchange with ACIM.

Hope this helps,

-Scott P. 12:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The end of the ACIM trial[edit]

"The Honorable Robert W. Sweet having made written findings of fact and conclusions of law by order dated October 24, 2003, ordering that judgment be entered in favor of the defendants dismissing the complaint and invalidating the copyright with costs to the defendants."

The primary copyright for the Work, A693944, which composes the First Edition, was officially void April 27, 2004.

Furthermore, on August 10, 2005 and October 25, 2005, the trademarks "A Course In Miracles" and "ACIM" respectively (Registration No.'s 1,807,235 and 2,118,192) were cancelled.

Antireconciler 06:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What the court order seems to say[edit]

Thanks for finding that. If you have the full text of "Final Order of the A Course In Miracles Trial", you might want to consider putting that on Wikisource as well. I don't mean that to sound as I am doubting your info. I was just thinking people who are interested in this book might be interested in being able to print off the proof it is public domain without having to redo your research. We can link the court document to this page for easy refernce.--BirgitteSB 08:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. I posted what I found, but getting solid, reliable information has been a headache. Certainly there's more left I want to do first, such as confirm with the copyright office that these registration numbers have actually been voided, and find out exactly which court document I exerpted from. Of the few rulings by Judge Robert W. Sweet that were posted online by the Southern District Court of New York for the case (96cv04126), this isn't one of them. Also, the excerpt as well as the copyright registration numbers it mentions point to the Second Edition of the work rather than the First. Antireconciler 21:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Birgette and Antireconciler,
I've read at an FACIM site that they interpret this to mean that the following items are still under copyright:
  1. The Song of Prayer
  2. Psychotherapy, practice and purpose
  3. Clarification of terms
  4. Certain short sections scattered throughout ACIM that were added in the second edition, but not included in the first edition.
  5. The enhanced passage numbering system that was added into the second edition, but not included in the first edition.
I think that if you simply followed the FACIM guidelines, you would be safe, as these guidelines were obviously worked out in consultation with thier copyright attorneys, and they are the only ones who would ever be in a position to seriously alledge any copyright violations here. If you have any further questions about this, you could email me by emailing me at the my Wiki ID (identical to my Wikisource ID).
-Scottperry 03:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have researched the issue of the Clarification of Terms, and it doesn't appear in a list of copyrighted material on the Facim website: Additionally, I have heard from two people who say that it is not. It is in my 1975 edition of the Manual for Teachers. Also, it is posted on and So, I have added it today, after emailing Scott Perry.
-Coursian 07:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Known online ACIM sources[edit] is our official source. However, this is a list of known online ACIM sources. If you know of others, please append the list.(See: Explaining the Versions)

    • "second edition" -- FACIM claims sections of the second edition are copyrighted, see Scottperry above
    • does not mention copyright, cannot contact by e-mail
    • "1975 public domain version" -- appearantly this is the year the first edition was distributed, whose copyright is appearantly void.
    • claims to be a public domain text, cannot contact by e-mail
    • appears as second edition and site claims copyright by FIP

Hugh Lynn Cayce version & urtext -- these versions were created prior to the first edition, and are apperantly also in the public domain. A number of sites offer these versions.


If I do not receive any objections soon (like within the next 2 days) I am going to beginning inputting the public domain version found at into Wikisource. If you compare that version ( which is supposedly in the public domain with this version ( which is supposedly the copyrighted second edition, then the differences are clear. I own the public domain version (Copyright 1975) of the book, and while I have not read through the version at fully, it appears to be identical to the book published in 1975. Considering that no one has been able to contact, and it has been online at least for a while and they have been unavailable for communication, I propose that we will make a good faith effort to copy the book at into Wikisource. If anyone is able to show that this is indeed copyrighted version, which I think it is realistic to assume, in good faith, that it is not, then we will comply fully with any applicable regulations. --Remi0o 09:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC) The free on-line, searchable, printable urtext version, can found here. http://courseinmiracles.comReply[reply]

Alright. I've moved most of the comments you wrote on the title page to the discussion page, as this really is where they belong. Some of them were redundant, so I deleted these, but I've indicated in the notes section of the title page's header, that this information may be found here. I hope you approve. Also, I appriciate your artwork of the title page, but in the interests of keeping Wikisource from appearing with the informality of a userpage, I've tried a compromize of simply toning it down a little. Again, I hope it meets your approval, although if you are more familiar with Wikipedia, please understand that Wikisource is a rather different environment. Antireconciler 07:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Helen Schucman is NOT the author[edit]

It is not correct to say that Helen Schucman is the author of A Course In Miracles. One might say, it is not possible to determine, but looking at the work itself, one can only accept that it is Jesus of Nazareth. So why not saying He is the author. If one needs a justification, one can easily say, it is definitely not more wrong than to credit Helen Schucman. She herself and also William Thetford stated that Jesus is the author. Who would be in a better position than they to witness to its authorship? They also never said that Helen Schucman is the author. Thanks--Mindawiki 01:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand. First, at least, I think we can agree that Helen Schucman's scribing puts her in an important position over the work. We can go about naming inspirational muzes, psudonyms and pen names and the like, but being that the name of the person who physically drafted the manuscript was Helen Schucman, this name should not be lost. Now, that Jesus of Nazareth should be credited for the work, is perhaps true, and should also not be neglected, per the scriber's wish. If it pleases you, let us then establish a compromize.
Traditional definitions of "author" indicate the "writer" of a work, although some indicate the "creator" of a work. Helen Schuman is surely the "writer", although there are two different senses of the "creator" of the work, namely, one in which Jesus of Nazareth is the creator, and one in which it is Helen Schuman, and so we could say it was "cocreated", although it seems Helen takes priority given these considerations.
As a result, let's put as author: "Helen Schuman (scribe for Jesus of Nazareth)". What do you think of this?
Antireconciler 18:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hear what you are saying, but it does not convince me. I have to say, im my mind the author of any work is only its creator. I would want to give credit to anyone who helped, served as a means in the creative process of it. So Helen Schucman would be a means, but not the driving force or author. While one can say, it is based on her vocabulary, ACIM is still expressing ideas that go, in terms of content, consistency and style, way beyond her or anyone's scope here. It is also a known fact that Helen was much opposed to a lot of the ideas expressed in ACIM, and she never felt really comfortable with the whole process. At her death she cursed the book. That does hardly speak of authorship.
It is very obvious that the source of ACIM is not human, and I also believe that anyone sees this. There is nothing mysterious about it. It might be a matter of willingness to really look at the issue, since it definitely demands my beliefs to be questioned. Who really wants to admit to something entirely different, not here and not this, something that does deny me entirely? We would all lie to ourselves. So maybe like this: Author - Jesus of Nazareth (with the help of Helen Schucman and Bill (William N.) Thetford). But then, why can't we just say it? What is wrong with us? No author would do it like this!!! Of course he would give credit, but not in this way. So can't we just do it like Jesus as the author would do it? --Mindawiki 04:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You say that it is clear that the source of ACIM is not human, but this might not be so obvious. What human quality is so lacking that human authorship is beyond possibility? Are humans too insignificant? Too imperfect? And would you say this in light of ACIM's own teachings? Or are you a disbeliever in it all? No, or else you would lack all enthusiasm, which is surely with you. What you might consider then, is that, for the sake of consistency, there might be entirely nothing inhuman about ACIM's authorship, and rather, everything entirely human.
As you say, Helen Schucman did not author it by herself, but I ask you: WHO AUTHORS ANYTHING BY THEMSELVES? Clearly, no one does. It is simply understood that the divine light shines through all creation and thus everything created, and is for that sake, never done alone. And yet who does not freely attribute their name to the works they mediated? Is this wrong? Surely not. Please reconsider. Antireconciler 19:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps just don't put an author, and just refer readers to the ongoing discussion. --Remi 05:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Full text of the court judgement[edit]

Judgement ruling ACIM 1975 version is in the public domain

ACIM Mini Project[edit]

I would like to see all three of the different parts of ACIM be put on Wikisource. I don't have the energy to do it entirely myself.

Please, if you would be interested in helping, put your name, and perhaps email or other user name on your most active Wikisite here (so once enough people add their names here you can be gotten a hold of), and once we have five to ten to enough people we can all coordinate a best time to get together and put ACIM on Wikisource in one fell swoop. If you add your email here, please don't forget to do it in a fashion so bots searching for email addresses cannot spam you (e.g. put name att gmail dott com instead of 18:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC) Interested participantsReply[reply]

Holy cow... you wanna transcribe the entire Course unto here? If it's all perfectly legal then I think it's a good idea, and I see you already have the first 12 chapters down. What about the numbering system the Course uses, though? You know, the number by every paragraph and every sentence? People use that for notation of quotes and excerpts, it may be good to include it also. George Oliver Darwin 20:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the record, I am the same user as Remi0o. Anyway, the numbering system is copyrighted. It was added to a modified (albeit unsurprisingly quite similar) publication of the public domain version. Also, the public domain version is available in a variety of locals online. It merely needs to be formated and copied to Wikisource. Not actually transcribed, thank goodness. : ) --Remi 04:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

moving... and call for contributors[edit]

See this image on Wikipedia... I would love it if some people would kick start this thing again. So, this little mini project of A Course in Miracles is OFFICIALLY looking for some dedicated individuals to help work this thing out.

Anyway, I am posting here to suggest that this be moved to A Course in Miracles, which I think currently redirects here. I suggest this because normally in titles "in" would be lower case. I think it is uppercase on (at least) some the older books mostly for aesthetics. --Remi 14:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes check.svg Done I have moved all of the pages, replacing " In " with " in ", " For " with " for " and " The " with " the ". The links still need to be replaced. I can automate that as well if needed. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Maybe just don't put one. If you read court documents it seems it was originally intended that ACIM be anonymous... Emesee 20:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How could we still give notice to users about the copyright...[edit]

But integrate it a bit artistically and gracefully into the page here? Emesee (talk) 04:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]