ple who gathered at Dr. Sadler’s home for that purpose on many occasions over that nine year period. The book at the time was in typed manuscript form. Dr. Sadler explained to his guests that the book had been written by one of his patients while in an unconscious or semi-conscious state and that the patient claimed to have no memory of having written the book. Dr. Sadler then had the handwritten manuscript transcribed into typed form. The defendant was one of the persons who came to these meetings it he never knew the identity of the patient/author. The plaintiff claims that everyone who knew the identity of the patient took a vow never to reveal that identity, and further states that the patient is now dead. Dr. Sadler died in 1969.
The Urantia Book is a religious-philosophical text which purports to give a blueprint for a better world. Dr. Sadler claimed, and both parties to this action apparently believe, that the book was written down as the result of divine or spiritual inspiration. As a result, in both written and oral arguments, there has been some discussion as to whether Dr. Sadler’s patient was the author of the book or was merely a conduit for some spiritual author. Legally, however, the source of the patient’s inspiration is irrelevant. No one contends that the Urantia Book was not original and therefore not copyrightable. The patient, as author, had an immediate, common law copyright, or right of first publication, in the book. Nimmer on Copyright, Sec. 2.02 and 2.01(B) (1979); Schwartz v. Broadcast Music Inc., 180 F.Supp. 322, 124 USPQ 34 (D.C.N.Y. 1960). He was free to transfer or assign this right to whomever he saw fit, and the transferee would then succeed to his common law rights, including the right to claim a statutory copyright under Title 17 of the United States Code, 17 U.S.C. Sec. 9. Nimmer on Copyrights Sec. 5.01(b) (1979); Remick Music Corp. v. Interstate Hotel Co., 58 F.Supp. 523, 63 USPQ 327 (D.C. Neb. 1945), affirmed 157 F.2d 744, 71 USPQ 138, cert. denied 329 U.S. 809, 72 USPQ 529.
In January, 1950, the Urantia Foundation was created by an instrument of trust with its primary estate consisting of over two thousand printing plates which had been prepared from the manuscript of the Urantia Book to be used in reproducing the book. Apparently these plates had been paid for by contributions from some or all of the people present at the 1926 through 1935 meetings. Five of those people were named as trustees and officers of the Foundation. According to the plaintiff the original handwritten manuscript was destroyed sometime before the plates were made and Dr. Sadler’s typewritten manuscript was destroyed after the plates were made. Significantly, the headquarters of the Foundation were originally located at Dr. Sadler’s home and he was intimately involved in the activities of the Foundation.
Under paragraph 3.3 of the document of trust one of the purposes of the Foundation, and one of the duties of the trustees was:
to retain absolute and unconditional control of all plates and other media for the printing and reproduction of The Urantia Book and any translation thereof * * *.
The Urantia Foundation subsequently published The Urantia Book in October, 1955 with proper notice of copyright and subsequently deposited copies of the book and registered its copyright claim with the Copyright Office, as required by federal law, 17 U.S.C. former sections 10, 11, and 13. On January 3, 1956 the Copyright Office issued a Certificate of Registration (A 216389) for The Urantia Book naming the Urantia Foundation as both copyright claimant and author of the book. The information on the Certificate is obtained from the claimant, so it is apparent that the plaintiff named itself as author even though it, of course, knew that it was not the author.
Sometime in the late 1960’s or early 1970’s the defendant became disenchanted with the way the Foundation was handling the dissemination of the ideas expressed in the Urantia Book. He first requested permission to copy and distribute certain sections of the book, but was turned down by the officers of the Foundation. He nevertheless undertook such copying and distribution and admits that he did so in order to test the validity of the plaintiff’s copyright. The plaintiff obliged him by bringing this action for copyright infringement.
The plaintiff’s Certificate of Registration has been entered into evidence and constitutes prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. Monogram Models Inc. v. Industro Motive Corp., 448 F.2d 282, 171 USPQ 266 (6th Cir. 1971). The ultimate fact embodied in a certificate of registration is that the claimant has a valid claim to a copyright in the work named. Thus, the certificate constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity of the claimant’s copyright. Blumcraft of Pittsburgh v. Newman Brothers, Inc., 373 F.2d 905, 153 USPQ 91 (6th Cir. 1967); Wihtol v. Wells, 231 F.2d
