"Facts" section above, a genuine issue of material fact regarding what took place in 1975 between Skutch and the Copyright Office. Although Skutch denied in his deposition testimony that he ever had a conversation about Jesus with the Copyright Office, this statement is contradicted by the statements in the December 1992 Article -- an article which purported to be co-authored by Skutch. That several clearly interested parties -- Skutch, Skutch-Whitson, Wapnick, and Gloria Wapnick -- now collectively deny that Skutch co-authored the Article and that Wapnick was not writing from personal knowledge does not make the Article inadmissible, but, rather, raises questions which cannot be resolved properly on summary judgment regarding the credibility of these witnesses and the truth of what took place in 1975.
Nevertheless, this defense fails for two reasons. First, as set forth in the preceding discussion of the originality defense, for purposes of federal copyright law Jesus is not the author of the Course. Regardless of Plaintiffs' beliefs, therefore, Defendants cannot establish the first element of the fraud claim: that the application was factually inaccurate. On this ground alone, the defense cannot be sustained.
Second, a copy of the Course was submitted with the initial application. Although the copy submitted did not contain
39
