Question

A college professor copies seven chapters from a book called "How to Get Better Grades–A Creative Approach to College Success!" There are ten chapters in the book. She incorporates this material into a packet of material that is printed in her college's copy center. The packet is then placed in the local book store and is placed on the required materials list for students to purchase. The author of the book on getting better grades believes the professor has violated his copyright. What is the author's viewpoint regarding the professor's actions?

1) The author is right. The professor should not have copied the chapters and placed them for sale in the bookstore.
2) The author is technically correct. However, even though an infringement occurred, he cannot sue the professor since educational personnel are exempt from liability under copyright law.
3) The author is not correct. Under the "fair use doctrine" a college professor can copy material and distribute it to students for educational purposes.
4) The author is not correct. It does not appear that the professor actually made any money from the alleged copyright infringement.

Answer 1

The author would be correct in believing that the professor violated his copyright because extensive parts of the material were copied and sold, which likely does not fall under fair use exceptions.

Step-by-step explanation:

The author of the book 'How to Get Better Grades–A Creative Approach to College Success!' believes the professor has violated his copyright by copying seven chapters and incorporating them into a packet for sale. The author's viewpoint is that the professor's actions are not permissible under copyright law. The fair use doctrine allows for limited use of copyrighted materials without permission for purposes such as teaching, research, scholarship, or criticism. However, since the material was used extensively and placed for sale, it is likely not considered fair use. Simply because the material was used in an educational setting does not exempt the professor from copyright infringement, and the fact that the professor might not have made a profit does not negate the infringement.