Cite as 895 F.Supp. 1347 (D.Ariz. 1995)
suggests the absence of an employment relationship.
Originally, it was the patient who sought Dr. Sadler, and not as an employer but as a therapist. The first “Urantia Papers” were not created at the insistence of Dr. Sadler, nor was the thought of their creation conceived by Dr. Sadler or the Contact Commission. Furthermore, there is no evidence that indicates the patient ever intended to deviate from the established doctor-patient relationship.
More important, there is no evidence that either Dr. Sadler or the Contact Commission had any power to induce, direct, supervise, oversee, or control the actual production of a single “Urantia Paper.” It appears as though Dr. Sadler and the Contact Commission were simply reacting to the independent activity of the patient. The plaintiff admits that it was the Contact Commission that was given instructions, responsibilities, and authority by the “personalities” emanating from the patient. (Pl.’s Admis. at 12.) Typically, however, it is the employer who gives instructions and delegates responsibilities, not the employee. The plaintiff essentially concedes that the Contact Commission lacked any power to control the production of the “Urantia Papers” when it states that although the Contact Commission would submit questions,[1] it was the “personalities” that determined which questions would be considered and what would be included in the text. Id. at 13. The plaintiff states that “without the questions, there would be no papers.” (Pl.’s Br. at 7.) The facts show, however, that the papers came before the questions, and that the questions were in response to the papers. Showing that the author chose to expand a particular paper in the wake of questions falls far short of meeting the plaintiff’s burden of showing that the author was required to do so as a subservient employee. Absent some credible evidence of an employment relationship, the existence of evidence that may be as consistent with such a relationship as it is with various other hypotheses cannot be bootstrapped to remedy the basic deficiency, which is the absence of any proof that the patient was in fact hired by Dr. Sadler or the Contact Commission to write the “Urantia Papers.” See Epoch, 522 F.2d at 744–45.
Each of the cases relied upon by the plaintiff is good law on the topic of the “works for hire” doctrine as construed under the 1909 Act, but each is distinguishable from the instant case. For example, the plaintiff directs the court’s attention to Dielman v. White, 102 F. 892 (C.C.D.Mass.1900). In that case, however, there were numerous items of correspondence that proved that the plaintiff was offered a commission to design a particular work, accepted it, and then entered into a formal work order. Similarly, there were express employment contracts in many of the other cases cited by the plaintiff. E.g., Yardley v. Houghton Mifflin Co., 108 F.2d 28, 29 (2d Cir.1939) (finding artist executed his painting pursuant to a written contract), cert. denied, 309 U.S. 686, 60 S.Ct. 891, 84 L.Ed. 1029 (1940); Siegel v. National Periodical Pub., Inc., 508 F.2d 909, 911 (2d Cir.1974) (finding plaintiff entered into initial and supplemental employment agreements); Shapiro, Bernstein & Co. v. Bryan, 123 F.2d 697, 698 (2d Cir.1941) (finding plaintiff employed each artist under a written employment contract).
Moreover, even in the cases where there was not an express employment contract, there was an abundance of evidence to support the conclusion that an employer-employee relationship existed. E.g., Lin-Brook Builders Hardware, 352 F.2d at 300 n. 3 (finding artist admitted being employed by plaintiff and disavowed any interest in work performed); Picture Music, 457 F.2d at 1217 (finding artist was sought out, given a preexisting work, instructed to modify it, and paid for her efforts); Murray, 566 F.2d at 1310 (finding plaintiff basically admitted being employee in a letter written to defendant).
In the instant case, even affording the plaintiff the benefit of every doubt, I fail to discern the existence of an employment rela-
- ↑ I assume that these were questions to which the Contact Commission earnestly desired an answer.
