Page:Urantia Foundation v. Maaherra (D. Ariz. 1995).pdf/22

 This larger group’s role was “to read and study the early drafts of the text of the Urantia Papers, discuss their content, and submit questions about the subject matter.” Id. at 88. At the end of this complex and arduous process 196 separate papers were procured and became known as the “Urantia Papers.”

Although neither party knows the exact date when the 196 distinct “Urantia Papers” were compiled and became The URANTIAUrantia [sic] Book, it is generally believed to have occurred in the mid-1930’s1930s [sic]. From that time onward Dr. Sadler and other people who were interested in the messages of The URANTIAUrantia [sic] Book would meet at his home and discuss the book. In 1950 the Urantia Foundation was created by an instrument of trust with an objective of educating the peoples of the world in an attempt to increase and enhance their comfort, happiness, and well being. The foundation was created by and initially included many of the original followers of Dr. Sadler. In 1955 the Urantia Foundation published The URANTIAUrantia [sic] Book and, shortly thereafter, registered its copyright claim with the Copyright Office, as required by federal law. See 17 U.S.C. §§ 10, 11 and 13 (1976). On the application for registration the Urantia Foundation claimed it was the sole author of the book. (Pl.’s Compl. Ex. A at 2.) In 1983 the Urantia Foundation applied for and obtained a renewal in the copyright to The URANTIAUrantia [sic] Book, claiming to be the “[p]roprietor of copyright in a work made for hire.” (Pl.’s Compl. Ex. B.)

On February 27, 1991, the Urantia Founflation filed a complaint against the defendant, alleging that she had “copied the text of The URANTIA Book … and … distributed [it] … throughout the United States.” (Pl.’s Compl. at ¶13.) Thereafter, the defendant filed her answer in which she “admits copying the text of The Urantia Book … and admits distributing [it] … throughout the United States.” ((Revised) Def.’s Substitute 2nd Am. Answer and Countercl. at ¶13.) The defendant contends, however, that “[t]he renewal copyright for The Urantia Book was not properly obtained.” Id. at ¶92.

The standard applied to a motion for partial summary judgment is identical to the standard applied to adjudicate a case fully by summary judgment. The motion shall be granted when, viewing the facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and … the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Calnetics Corp. v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 532 F.2d 674, 683 n. 11 (9th Cir.), ''cert. denied'', 429 U.S. 940, 97 S.Ct. 355, 50 L.Ed.2d 309 (1976). A genuine issue of material fact exists when there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510–11, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (citing First Nat. Bank of Arizona v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 88 S.Ct. 1575, 20 L.Ed.2d 569 (1968)). If the moving party meets the initial burden of establishing the nonexistence of a genuine issue, then the burden shifts to the opposing party to produce evidence of the existence of a genuine issue for trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). “If the evidence is merely colorable or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249–50, 106 S.Ct. at 2510–11 (citations omitted).

To prevail on the claim of copyright infringement the Urantia Foundation must prove both ownership of a valid copyright and “copying” by the defendant of the protected components of the copyrighted material. Data East USA, Inc. v. Epyx, Inc., 862 F.2d 204, 206 (9th Cir.1988) (citing