each Paper, and to the organization and order in which the Papers followed one another." Urantia, 114 F.3d at 958. This was held to constitute sufficient creative input to satisfy the originality requirement of the Copyright Act. See id.; cf. Garman v. Sterling Publ'g Co., No. C-91-0882, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21932, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 1992) ("assertions by both parties that the information [in copyrighted text] was provided by spiritual guides" "channeled" through a person in a "psychic trance" held not to be a defense to originality). In particular, "[t]hose who were responsible for the creation of the tangible literary form that could be read by others, could have claimed copyright for themselves as 'authors,' because they were responsible for the revelations appearing 'in such a way as to render the work as a whole original.'" Urantia, 114 F.3d at 958 (quoting Feist, 499 U.S. at 358).
In the instant case, FIP, FACIM, their principals Wapnick, Skutch-Whitson, and Skutch, and Schucman and Thetford have repeatedly asserted that Jesus dictated the Course to Schucman. Nevertheless, it is not disputed that the arrangement of the materials in the Course was initiated by Schucman, with assistance from Thetford, Wapnick, and others. Perhaps of even greater significance, there is no evidence to suggest that the Course would have come into existence had Schucman not had the conversation with
28
