be verified in a court of law according to the rules of evidence. See Garman, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21932, at *7 (with regard to issue of originality, held that there was "no legal relevance to the assertions by both parties that the information was provided by spiritual guides") (citing Urantia II, 210 U.S.P.Q. 217 ("legally … the source of the [author's] inspiration is irrelevant.")).
Thus, the defense of lack of originality fails on two independent grounds: the Course is an original literary work of Schucman, and even if it were not, it would still be an original compilation of facts.
- 2. Fraud on the Copyright Office
Defendants next assert that Plaintiffs, by deliberately withholding the name of Jesus as the author of the Course after hearing from the Copyright Office that it would reject an application with Jesus listed as author, perpetrated a fraud upon the Copyright Office which would have resulted in rejection of the application for registration.
"A party seeking to establish a fraud on the Copyright Office … bears a heavy burden. The party asserting fraud must establish that the application for copyright registration
37
