Page:Urantia Foundation v. Burton.pdf/5

210 USPQ in that each of the facts stated therein are to be considered separately. Only if the misstatement was made with a fraudulent purpose, or if the Copyright Office might not have issued the certificate if the true facts had been revealed (in which case a fraudulent purpose in not revealing those facts may be inferred) will a proven misstatement cancel the entire prima facie effect of the certificate. Otherwise the burden of proof shifts to the plaintiff only as to those specific facts which are shown to be untrue.

The most that the defendant has done in showing that the plaintiff was not the actual author of the book is to place a burden on the plaintiff to show the basis of its claim of copyright by some means other than actual authorship. The fact that the plaintiff listed itself as the author of the book on its application for copyright is not sufficient to completely destroy the presumption in favor of a registered copyright. Evidence presented by the defendant indicated that the plaintiff’s motive in naming itself as author was to preserve the anonymity of the real author. No evidence of any intended fraud has been presented. If the plaintiff had simply listed the work as anonymous, the Copyright Office would have nevertheless issued the certificate. Thus, the plaintiff’s misstatement, while not the preferred method of preserving anonymity, did not affect the decision of the Copyright Office, and was not intended to defraud anybody. Once the plaintiff overcomes the evidence showing the inaccuracy in its Certificate of Registration it is once more entitled to a presumption in favor of the validity of its copyright.

Since the plaintiff is not the author of The Urantia Book, it must demonstrate its claim of copyright as an assignee of the rights of the author. 17 U.S.C. former section 9; Nimmer on Copyrights Section 5.01(A) (1979); Epoch Producing Corp. v. Killiam Shows, Inc., 522 F.2d 737, 187 USPQ 270 (2d Cir. 1975); Borden v. General Motors Corp., 28 F.Supp. 330, 42 USPQ 117 (D.C.N.Y. 1939); Van Cleef, supra. The plaintiff claims that the right to claim statutory copyright was transferred orally from the author to Dr. Sadler, and that Dr. Sadler then transferred that right to the Plaintiff through the document of trust by which it was created. The very facts which the defendant has used to show that the plaintiff was not the author have also established that Dr. Sadler was the assignee of the rights of the author of The Urantia Book. That Dr. Sadler had possession of the original manuscript and exercised complete control over it until the formation of the Foundation in 1950 is evidence that the patient did transfer his common law rights to Dr. Sadler. Callaghan v. Myers, 128 U.S. 617 (1888); Houghton Mifflin Co. v. Stackpole Sons, 104 F.2d 306, 42 USPQ 96 (2d Cir. 1939) cert denied 308 U.S. 597, 43 USPQ 521; Freudenthal v. Hebrew Publishing Co., 44 F.Supp. 754, 53 USPQ 466 (D.C.N.Y. 1942).

The defendant argues strenuously that the plaintiff has unique knowledge concerning the circumstances of the transfer of the original handwritten manuscript from the patient/author to Dr. Sadler and that it should be required to divulge this information or lose its copyright. The defendant does not claim that this information would reveal any improprieties but only claims that it could conceivably do so. The defendant asserts that it is just as likely that there was no transfer of the common law copyright as that there was, and that Dr. Sadler’s mere possession of the manuscript is not enough to infer such a transfer. This position, however, ignores the circumstances of Dr. Sadler’s possession of the manuscript. Significant in this regard are the facts that Dr. Sadler introduced the manuscript to the public through the meetings at his home; that the existence of the patient/author was revealed by Dr. Sadler; that Dr. Sadler exercised control over the manuscript for almost twenty-five years; that this control was never challenged by anyone; and that the real author has never revealed himself or claimed any interest in the book.

The plaintiff has also established that Dr. Sadler transferred the common law copyright to the Foundation. The words of the trust document could hardly be clearer in granting the Foundation exclusive control over the Urantia Book, including the right to claim a copyright. That document coupled with the Foundation’s possession of the printing plates and Dr. Sadler’s intimate connection with, and acquiescence in the activities of the Foundation, both before and after it obtained the statutory copyright, all lead to the conclusion that there was such a transfer.

Thus, the plaintiff has met the burden imposed upon it by the defendant’s evidence regarding authorship and has overcome that evidence, which is all that it is required to do. Therefore its registered copyright is entitled to a presumption of validity without some further showing by the defendant. The burden of controverting the plaintiff’s claimed chain of title in the copyright is squarely