Dear ACIM Students,

After seven years of legal proceedings Judge Robert Sweet of the Southern District Court of New York has made his decision. He has just issued a ruling which overturns the copyright of ACIM. The Endeavor Academy has won the copyright lawsuit. The copyright of the Course is invalidated. The Foundation for Inner Peace's complaint against Endeavor has been dismissed. Endeavor has been awarded attorney’s fees and costs. The copyright of A Course in Miracles is NOT valid because of prior distribution of the Course.

The essence of Judge Sweet's ruling:

"... Upon all the prior proceedings and the following findings of fact and conclusions, judgment will be entered in favor of the defendants dismissing the copyright.

"This litigation involves extraordinary materials and deep-seated convictions which have transformed a copyright action into issues of faith and commitment and required the examination of events which occurred over a quarter of a century ago. The preponderance of the credible evidence has established that the plaintiffs' predecessors in interest distributed the Course before its publication."

The entire decision can be read at:  http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/public.htm

*************************************************************

Date Case # Caption Title Judge Posted 10/24/03 96cv04126 Penguin Books v. New Christian Church Opinion Robert W. Sweet 10/27/03 Description Judgment will be entered dismissing complaint and granting judgment invalidating copyright with costs to defendants. Submit judgment on notice. Upon entry of judgment, a stay of 10 days will be granted to permit any further emergency proceedings.

Extracts from ruling:

II. Conclusions of Law

A. Copyright Jurisdiction

To establish their defense to infringement, defendants must demonstrate that the work was "published," as that term is used and defined in the copyright context, without copyright notice. ... The showing of a work to a select group of people for a limited purpose (such as to seek commentary or criticism) does not constitute "publication" within the meaning of the copyright law, and is legally insufficient to place the work into the public domain. ...  In particular, the creator of a work has the right to show it to a limited class of people without jeopardizing the common law copyright, and, under such circumstances, the publication will be deemed "limited."

B. The Plaintiffs Have the Burden of Proof

The Church and Endeavor have met their initial burden of proof to show that the Course entered the public domain or was "published" prior to October 6, 1975 without notice of copyright.

"A general publication 'occurs when by the consent of the copyright owner, the original or tangible copies of a work are sold, leased, loaned, given away or otherwise made available to the general public, or when an authorized offer is made to dispose of the work in any such manner even if a sale or other such disposition does not in fact occur.

As found above, A Course in Miracles was published without notice of copyright prior to copyright registration i.e. was "published." Once a distribution or publication without notice of copyright prior to copyright registration has been established, the burden of proof shifts to the plaintiff, the holder of the copyright, to show that the publication or distribution of the work was for a limited purpose; and as such was legally insufficient to place the work into the public domain. ...

C. The Group To Which Distribution Was Made Was Not Select

A select group cannot be created by an author's "subjective 'test of cordiality.'" Thus, when works are given or sold to persons deemed "worthy" a select call is not created and the publication is not limited. When plaintiffs sell or give the Work to "congenial strangers" the Court is "unable to see in this picture any definitely selected individuals or any limited, ascertained group or class to whom the communication was restricted. ... The process by which Schucman and Thetford decided whether an individual should receive the Course was completely subjective and done through a test of cordiality as to whether a particular person was worthy or ready for the Course. The decision that someone was ready to receive the work lacked objective qualification and was based on the anticipated interest in or effect of the Course on the recipient. It is not possible to ascertain what individuals were or would be part of a select or restricted class. An interest in spiritual experience fails to define a class adequately.

The common interest in the subject matter of a work, that is, in this case spiritual revelation, will not render the publication limited.

As found above, a number of unknown people received the uncopyrighted manuscript prior to publication without notice. The admitted recipients of the Course include Skutch Whitson, Wapnick, Hatcher, Hugh Lynn Cayce, his son, Herbert Puryear, Jampolsky, Bolen, Erickson, John Mundy, Dean, Father Groeschel, Hammond, Steinberg, and his cousin Saul Steinberg, and Zelda Suplee.

D. The Distribution Was Not Limited as to Use

As an initial matter, there is no evidence of a written limitation on use by either Schucman, Thetford or Skutch Whitson. There is no direct evidence of any limitation to distribution by Schucman and Thetford to Cayce, Puryear, Mundy, Dean, and Groeschel. Wapnick and Skutch Whitson, interested witnesses, did testify that they received their copies with the understanding that the Course was to be held in confidence and not further distributed without Schucman's permission. While Wapnick's testimony in this regard was unimpeached, Skutch Whitson's statements were contradicted by her actions, the telephone call to Jampolsky, the offer to make the Course available to Skutch, the transmittal to Bolen, and the subsequent review by Hammond. ...

An author's lack of personal knowledge or friendship with persons that receive the work is indicative that a distribution was not limited as to the group or the purpose.

At the time of distribution Schucman did not know or had not met James Bolen, Gerald Jampolsky, David Hammond, Herbert Puryear, Hugh Lynn Cayce's son, the Steinbergs, Reed Erickson or Edgar Mitchell. Additionally, Skutch Whitson, Wapnick, Mundy and Dean were virtual strangers to Schucman at the time she gave them or allowed them to have a copy of the Course. ...

Skutch Whitson at trial sought to contradict her earlier statements on the audiotapes that (i) Schucman and Thetford did not object to the Courses' distribution in California; that 100's of people acquired copies in California; and people were running off copies as fast as possible, by asserting that these statements were merely oratorical hyperbole. However, such distribution is consistent with the decision to end the alleged secrecy policy, to obtain a copyright and to initiate a photo-offset production. There is no evidence that anyone at the time of making the decision to copyright was aware, or had contemplated, the effect of pre-publication distribution. The publication date of October 5, 1975 not only binds FIP, but accords with the facts surrounding the production of the Criswell edition. From all the facts it must be inferred that all the interested parties intended to make the Work as available as possible without limitation.

Conclusion

Based upon the facts as found above and the conclusions of law just set forth, judgment will be entered dismissing the complaint and granting judgment invalidating the copyright with costs to the defendants.

 

Endeavor Academy Update!