Page:Oliver v. Saint Germain Foundation.pdf/4

 terms possible, his sincere belief in the truthfulness of his statement that he, a mortal being, was not the author, and to induce those who might read to believe that it was dictated by a superior spiritual being, whose motive was to uplift and benefit the human race spiritually, religiously and morally. In other words, he sought to give the book an origin similar to that claimed by the followers of Joseph Smith in the Book of Mormons, the Koran by the followers of Mohammed, and to some extent the Bible, although it affirms the teachings of much of the New Testament.

In this situation, if we accept Oliver’s statement as true and not fiction, how can we say that King, who wrote defendants’ book, was any less truthful and sincere, even though there be some similarity as to the methods of spiritual communication, incidents, etc., between the two? Who can say that the spirit of the Master or Masters, whether called by one name or another, might not see fit to use both men as instrumentalities or amanuenses for communicating their messages of guidance and direction to humanity? The law deals with realities and does not recognize communication with and the conveyances of legal rights by the spiritual world as the basis for its judgment. Nevertheless, equity and good morals will not permit one who asserts something as a fact which he insists his readers believe as the real foundation for its appeal to those who may buy and read his work, to change that position for profit in a law suit. Davies v. Bowes, D.C., 209 F. 53; Collins v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corporation et al., D.C., 25 F.Supp. 781, reversed on other grounds, 2 Cir., 106 F.2d 83. One who narrates matters of fact may be protected by copyright as to his arrangement, manner and style, but not as to material or ideas therein set forth. Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corporation, D.C., 34 F.2d 145.

There is no charge of infringement here based upon style or arrangement, but it is upon the subject matter or stories of two earthly creatures receiving from the spiritual world messages for recordation and use by the living. There is no plagiarism or copying of words and phrases as such, but only slight similarity of experiences in that the parties became agencies for communicating between the spiritual and material worlds, of things which happened in other ages. In final analysis, the object of both is to impress what is said to be one of the chief attractions of the theosophical movement, belief in the reincarnation of the soul.

I do not deem it necessary to go into the prayer by the complainants for summary judgment, which must be determined largely by comparison of the two books. It is sufficient to say, I think, that even on this basis, I do not believe the plaintiffs’ case is made out.

The motion to dismiss will therefore be sustained.