Page:Urantia Foundation v. Maaherra (D. Ariz. 1995).pdf/25

 "That in the case of any posthumous work or of any periodical, cyclopedic, or other composite work upon which the copyright was originally secured by the proprietor thereof, or … by an employer for whom such work is made for hire, the proprietor of such copyright shall be entitled to a renewal and extension of the copyright in such work for the further term of twenty-eight years."

17 U.S.C. § 24 (1976). The plaintiff claims its renewal copyright in The URANTIAUrantia [sic] Book is valid “because it is the proprietor, and the work is both a ‘work for hire’ and a ‘composite work’ within the meaning of the applicable copyright law.” (Pl.’s Br. at 3.) I do not find sufficient evidence to support either claim.

I accept the plaintiff’s contention that “an anonymous individual known simply as the ‘contact personality’ … had some involvement with the physical process by which the ‘Urantia Papers’ were written down[, but] … did not contribute any copyrightable expression to the papers … [and therefore] is not an author of any part of The URANTIAUrantia [sic] Book.” (Pl.’s Br. at 4 n. 2.) I interpret the Contact Personality’s role to be that of a mere scribe, unable to be the author of that which it mechanically transcribes. Furthermore, I agree with the plaintiff’s contention that under the 1909 Act the “works for hire” doctrine was broad enough to include both traditional employees and individuals commissioned for a particular project. "[W]hen one person engages another, whether as employee or as an independent contractor, to produce a work of an artistic nature, that in the absence of an express contractual reservation of the copyright in the artist, the presumption arises that the mutual intent of the parties is that the title to the copyright shall be in the person at whose instance and expense the work is done."

Lin-Brook Builders Hardware v. Gertler, 352 F.2d 298, 300 (9th Cir.1965) (citations omitted).

However, the “works for hire” doctrine is premised on the plaintiff’s ability to prove an employment relationship. Without credible evidence of an actual employment relationship, the “works for hire” doctrine has no application. Murray, 566 F.2d at 1310. Consequently, in the absence of such a relationship, a court will not deny an author its constitutional right to a copyright in its work. Therefore, the crucial question is whether there is sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that there was an employment relationship between Dr. Sadler’s patient and either Dr. Sadler or the Contact Commission. I find that there is not.

Courts have relied upon numerous factors to determine whether an alleged employment relationship exists. "The crucial element in this determination appears to be whether the work was created at the employer’s insistence and expense, or, in other words, whether the motivating factor in producing the work was the employer who induced its creation. Another factor is whether the employer had the right to direct and supervise the manner in which the work was being performed. Actual exercise of that right is not controlling, and copyright is vested in the employer who has no intention of overseeing the detailed activity of any employee hired for the very purpose of producing the material. In addition, the nature and amount of compensation or the absence of any payment for the work may be considered but are of minor importance."

Murray, 566 F.2d at 1310 (citations omitted). Each of the aforementioned factors, considered in light of the facts of the instant case,