Answers To Textbook Questions: Copyright Violation?

from the oh-come-on... dept

Just a few weeks ago, in writing about the pointlessness of "derivative rights" in copyright law, I questioned the "example" of an answer key for a textbook, noting that there was no reason to have it covered by copyright:
But, to me, this seems ridiculous on a basic common sense reading. I can't fathom how anyone can (at least honestly) claim that copyright really has an idea/expression dichotomy and then say that Section 106(2) makes any sense at all. What's wrong if someone else wants to produce an answer guide to an original textbook? Why would it ever make policy sense to deny such a right? In most cases, you would assume that the original creator of the textbook would have a better understanding of the topics and the answers, so an "unauthorized" answer key is unlikely to be as valuable. But why should it be prevented? On top of that, if the answer key is just answering questions, then how could it be infringement? Those answers are accurate "facts" responding to questions. If an answer key is infringing, then wouldn't that make student answers infringing as well?
Apparently, though, others don't agree -- and they're the folks who make the rules. Michael Scott points us to the news that a court has ruled that answers to a textbook questions are a derivative work, and someone who was selling such answers online was infringing on the copyright of the textbook publisher. This still makes no sense to me. First, there's no "copying." Second, isn't answering a question a "factual" statement? How can answering a question be copyright infringement? From a policy and common sense perspective it makes no sense. But, that's what you get with the way copyright law is these days. It's not about the incentive to create, but about stifling competition and free speech. In the meantime, I can't wait to see the next student sued for copyright infringement for answering his homework questions.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Derek Reed (profile), Nov 5th, 2009 @ 3:57pm

    So Confused

    It has no purpose on its own as it merely lays out a schedule with repeated references to the Manual ... The solutions, for their part, have no independent viability

    The judgement seems to focus on the fact that the answers don't mean much without the questions, but why is that so important? My comment here doesn't mean much without Mike's post up above, does that mean my comment a derivative work that violates Techdirt's copyright?

    I'm glad I'm not a lawyer, but I'd sure like one to explain this.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      kazi, Nov 5th, 2009 @ 4:01pm

      Re: So Confused

      Actually, the problem is as meaningless as the answer if you don't have the solution (i.e. step wise method of solving the problem to obtain the answwer) ... atleast to any sensible engineer, student, and/or professor.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Kazi, Nov 5th, 2009 @ 3:58pm

    Since solutions are different from answers are the solutions also copyrighted? Even the different solutions that can be used to solve the problem and obtain the same answer?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    bulljustin, Nov 5th, 2009 @ 3:59pm

    Homework

    Best excuse has just gone from "The dog ate my homework" to "I can't do my homework because it's illegal." (not that copyright is a legal issue, it's a civil one)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    anymouse (profile), Nov 5th, 2009 @ 4:04pm

    Student Rebellion time

    So this means that the students can now sue their schools for 'inducing copyright infringement' when the professors ask them to answer the questions in the textbook, right?

    What if some of the questions are so basic to the subject matter, that they can be found in any of several textbooks? What is the atomic structure of water? How do you increase revenue in a basic dual entry accounting system? We need a team of scholars to scour textbooks for similar questions and then sue them all for 'derivative copyright infringement' and see how they like it.

    Obviously the tin-foil just isn't enough today....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 5th, 2009 @ 4:08pm

    Have you ever considered that there might already be a thing called "teachers edition" that has all the answers?

    Perhaps also it is because without the original textbook, the answerbook is a meaningless collection of "answers without questions", thus pretty clearly making it a derivative work.

    With A, no B. Sort of simple, unless you are desperately trying to find another way to bash copyright laws.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Nov 5th, 2009 @ 4:12pm

      Re:

      But it's so easy to bash copyright laws. How can you copyright the truth? That's kind of stupid? Right? Isn't that correct? Huh?

      Don't bother answering my question. I'll sue you for infringement.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      jerome (profile), Nov 5th, 2009 @ 4:27pm

      Re:

      The fact that there was already a book with answers does not change copyright status of my book with different answers to the same questions. It might just give hints why they are angry if you too publish a book--they believe you break their business model.

      1) I still have the right to sell a "meaningless collection of answer without questions". (Lots of poetry are actually forms of it)
      2) The answer book is increasing the business of the question book! Why do they complain?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Nov 5th, 2009 @ 4:36pm

        Re: Re:

        1) Without the questions, why bother? Obviously the answer book would reference the question book. So sorry, there is no sort of wiggling out. Without A, no B.

        2) Perhaps maybe because they are already in the business of selling answer books? Perhaps because they don't want answer books out there to make it easier for students to cheat in school?

        You can write a book with all the truth you want. When you make it entirely in reference to the content of another book, that is a derivative work.

        How hard is that to understand?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Nov 5th, 2009 @ 4:40pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          1) And, again, that has absolutely nothing to do with what a derivative work is.

          2) And, again, that is all irrelevant to copyright.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Nov 5th, 2009 @ 4:43pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          The truth isn't derivative.

          It's like debating with children.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          DocMenach (profile), Nov 5th, 2009 @ 5:48pm

          Re: Re: Re: At which point is it an infirnging derivative work?

          You can write a book with all the truth you want. When you make it entirely in reference to the content of another book, that is a derivative work.

          Well then at what point does it become an infringement? When I write answers to the book questions for my assignment? When I photocopy my answers and hand them out to classmates? When I type up my answers and print up multiple copies for my classmates? When I charge classmates for those copies? When I have my answers nicely bound at the campus print shop and give or sell them to classmates? When I take that Print shop copy and sell it online on ebay? When I take a digital copy and give it away online using bittorrent? When enough people notice my answer key and a publisher decides to publish my answer key?

          If you are saying that an answer key is an infringing derivative work, then at what point does it become one?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Nov 5th, 2009 @ 6:02pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: At which point is it an infirnging derivative work?

            Heres an example: Text book has 20 questions. The answer book exactly answers those 20 questions, in the exact order, and says "these are the answers to the question is "text book".

            Oh, to answer your other question, when you widely distribute it, you would be violating copyright. Selling it would make it ever so much more obvious. Not selling it makes it non-commercial, but still pretty much actionable.

            You can write answers for your assignment (or for anything else personal for that matter) without have any concerns about copyright. That isn't an issue. You know it, you are just being a little extreme to try to make a point that is rapidly slipping out of your grasp.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Nov 5th, 2009 @ 6:30pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: At which point is it an infirnging derivative work?

              The answer is YES. Haha. I'm violating copyright. Haha. It's like jaywalking. The answer is YES. Haha. No one can stop me!

              It's YES! I win! Haha. The truth cannot be derivative.

              Are you braindead?

              Don't bother, you already know the answer to that one.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Richard (profile), Nov 6th, 2009 @ 2:46pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: At which point is it an infirnging derivative work?

              You can write answers for your assignment (or for anything else personal for that matter) without have any concerns about copyright. That isn't an issue.

              No! Here we see the harmful consequences of eliding copyright, patent and trademark law together. Under copyright law it is tha act of copying (or creating a derivative work) that constitutes infringement. Commercial activity aggravates the violation - but it doesn't create it . The judge's comments about the "independent value" of the work are also a red herring. Copyright law doesn't care about how good or bad, valuable or worthless the derivative work is - it just cares about the extent to which it copies or makes use of the original.

              If selling answer guides is infringement then answering the questions is infringement end of story.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Nov 5th, 2009 @ 6:14pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          You can write a book with all the truth you want.

          Apparently not. Read the article.

          When you make it entirely in reference to the content of another book, that is a derivative work.

          So, one person writes a question. Another writes an answer. (There is not minimum length requirement for copyright) Derivative work, huh? You're a copyright shill, aren't you?

          How hard is that to understand?

          Not hard at all: copyright is nuts.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          btr1701 (profile), Nov 6th, 2009 @ 7:34am

          Re: Re: Re:

          > 1) Without the questions, why bother?

          That's my business, not yours or anyone else's. If I want to waste me time on frivolusly publishing meaningless things, then that's my right.

          There's no requirement in the law that everything I publish must have "meaning".

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          btr1701 (profile), Nov 6th, 2009 @ 7:39am

          Re: Re: Re:

          > 1) Without the questions, why bother?

          That's my business, not yours or anyone else's. If I want to waste me time on frivolusly publishing meaningless things, then that's my right.

          There's no requirement in the law that everything I publish must have "meaning".

          > Perhaps maybe because they are already in the
          > business of selling answer books?

          So? Now they have competition. It's called capitalism. Something we used to embrace in this country.

          > Perhaps because they don't want answer books
          > out there to make it easier for students to
          > cheat in school?

          Perhaps that is indeed what they want. However, such concerns are irrelevant to copyright law. Using copyright to further the desire of a book company to keep kids from cheating isn't legally justified anywhere in the U.S. Code.

          Just because a company wants something doesn't mean they have the legal right to enforce their desires on the rest of us using copyright (or anything else, for that matter). Unless the law specifically provides for it (and copyright does not provide for prevention of cheating by school students), the desires of the company are moot.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Allen (profile), Nov 5th, 2009 @ 4:46pm

        Re: Re:

        Not that I'm agreeing with the judgement, but if your answers are different then there is a good chance that they're also wrong - just sayin'.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Nov 5th, 2009 @ 4:36pm

      Re:

      Um, you're not making any sense.

      Without movies, there are no movie reviews.
      Without news, there are no news articles.
      Without lyrics/notes/etc., there are no songs.
      Without your comment, I wouldn't have to waste my time pointing out your stupidity.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Nov 5th, 2009 @ 5:59pm

        Re: Re:

        Wow, and I thought Mike was the master of reaching.

        Movies? Reviews are news, opinion, whatever. They are not directly derivative, just discussing the subject. It's the same as posting a comment on this blog.

        News? Crap happens, people report crap happens. If crap stopped happening, there would be no news. But since the crap isn't copyright, no big deal. No deriviative issues here.

        Notes? Not copyright - so derivative issues there either.

        Stupidity? I think you have the market cornered, but that is only my non-derivative opinion of your points.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          The Groove Tiger (profile), Nov 5th, 2009 @ 6:31pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Movies? Reviews are news, opinion, whatever. They are not directly derivative, just discussing the subject. It's the same as posting a comment on this blog."

          Without A, no B. How hard is that to understand?

          "News? Crap happens, people report crap happens. If crap stopped happening, there would be no news. But since the crap isn't copyright, no big deal. No deriviative issues here."

          Without A, no B. How hard is that to understand?

          "Notes? Not copyright - so derivative issues there either."

          Without A, no B. How hard is that to understand?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Nov 5th, 2009 @ 6:33pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Wow, and I thought Mike was the master of reaching.

          Nay, he just has a habit of disagreeing with the copyright industry. The real masters of "reach" are the copyright supporters. In fact, ruling is an example of the "reaching" they'll do if given half a chance.

          Movies? Reviews are news, opinion, whatever. They are not directly derivative, just discussing the subject.

          The court's reasoning was that the answers were of little value without the questions and that that made them derivative works.

          Now a movie review is obviously of little value without the original movie and so, using the court's reasoning, it is a derivative work of the original movie.

          It's the same as posting a comment on this blog.

          As long as you're not replying to someone else's post. Then it becomes copyright infringement using the court's reasoning.

          So what are you going do now that I replied to you, sue me? Answer that and *I* might *sue* you.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Nov 5th, 2009 @ 6:35pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Stupidity? I think you have the market cornered,

          And the first one to start calling names loses...

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Derek Reed (profile), Nov 5th, 2009 @ 4:43pm

    The real problem

    This seems strikingly similar to the Texas Instruments issues posted on here not that long ago.

    1. Company realizes *GASP*, students can cheat using x
    2. Use IP law to squash x, problem solved
    3. Doesn't really matter because students can still cheat because your test was poorly designed to allow cheating in the first place

    This and the TI case were about maintaining the value of these existing products by pretending that students can't cheat. Guess what? They can, they do - if you want to stop "cheating", build a better "test". HINT: It's not multiple choice.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Just some guy, Nov 5th, 2009 @ 5:09pm

    BullJustin: "not that copyright is a legal issue, it's a civil one".

    I think you mean "not that copyright is a criminal issue, it's a civil one" - even civil issues are legal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    andrew johnson (profile), Nov 5th, 2009 @ 5:17pm

    What Colour are your bits?

    Oddly enough, I think I might actually actually agree with this ruling. This seems to be a perfectly logical extension of the basic concept of a derivative work. However, this does set a somewhat odd precedent by placing the legal status of answering textbook questions in limbo: can I still do my homework? Normally using a product for its intended purpose would clearly be fair-use, but with fair-use pretty well dead, it would certainly make for an interesting case.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 5th, 2009 @ 5:51pm

    So the number 42 must be copyrighted as it is the answer to life, the universe, and everything as stated by the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy. I hope I don't get sued for wrighting that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 5th, 2009 @ 6:31pm

    Copyright maximalists are boring.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Nov 5th, 2009 @ 6:33pm

    The answer is "Abraham Lincoln".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Nov 5th, 2009 @ 6:41pm

      Re:

      That's a derivative work! You're going to get kicked off the internet now and it's about bloody time.

      "Abraham Lincoln" is copyrighted to every question that has "Abraham Lincoln" as the answer. You're busted. I hope you rot offline.

      Dirty copyright infringer.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Phil, Nov 5th, 2009 @ 6:56pm

    Incentive to create??... Nah. What I need is Control!!

    "...the way copyright law is these days. It's not about the incentive to create, but about stifling competition and free speech."
    EXACTLY right.
    A few days ago, somebody was complaining that this blog was drifting away from the topic of IP too often when the issue of monopoly came up. That sort of comment represents a complete failure to understand what abusive IP is ALL about. Abuse of IP law exists precisely because certain people want the government to help them control how their product is used and stifle competition.
    Heavy-handed IP is a monopolist's dream.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Just Sayin, Nov 5th, 2009 @ 7:08pm

    Wrong Answer

    My experience with textbooks is that some of the answers in the back are wrong. Do they seriously want to copyright their wrong answers ?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      ChrisB (profile), Nov 6th, 2009 @ 6:55am

      Re: Wrong Answer

      That is how you prove copying. The chances of two people coming to the same right answer are high. The chances of two people coming to the same wrong answer are small.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Comboman (profile), Nov 5th, 2009 @ 7:31pm

    Unauthorized Guides

    What about all those unauthorized guides to beating video game X? Or what about "Program Y for Dummies"? Are they a copyright violation?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Jason, Nov 5th, 2009 @ 7:57pm

      Re: Unauthorized Guides

      As far as I can tell, yes, video game guides ARE covered by the precedent set by this ruling. They pretty plainly fall directly under the reasoning used.

      I sort of understand the reason to have derivative works be covered, but it seems like something like trademark law would make more sense than copyright. If I write a "Harry Potter" book, but it is completely original other than the setting, it seems much more closely related to trademark infringement than copyright infringement... you don't want someone else trading on the value you have built up, but it doesn't really seem like it falls under the same category as the primary idea of copyright.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Derek Reed (profile), Nov 6th, 2009 @ 8:38am

        Re: Re: Unauthorized Guides

        There's a big difference between someone else "trading on the value you have built up" and doing harm to your business by falsely representing themselves as you. One actually causes you harm, the other might actually help you.

        Oh noes, someone else also made a dollar using my idea, sue the crap out of 'em.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 5th, 2009 @ 7:39pm

    Isn't the point more to prevent the publication of a solutions manual at all (or to make it only available to the teachers)? I've never heard of two different solutions manuals for the same book--unless the first one is terrible, why bother?

    Given the rampant cheating on some campuses, it seems like preventing students from acquiring a solutions manual could be desirable (since unless there are bizarre errors in the solutions manual it might be very hard to catch cheaters with one).

    Of course, maybe copyright law isn't the best way to achieve this result, but how else?

    (I don't think the TI calculator thing is a very good analogy, since by the time the signing keys were factored, people had already found plenty of other ways to fake a calculator erase convincingly, meaning that most classes had already started banning calculators entirely on exams or just making them open book.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Kazi, Nov 5th, 2009 @ 7:51pm

      Re:

      Solutions manuals aren't usually for cheating unless professors are lazy.

      Most professors, of mine, made up their own problems and provide you with the solutions manual to the book.

      Why? It's good practice.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 6th, 2009 @ 5:49am

    sounds like a good excuse for not doing your homework.

    "Sorry sir, I didn't have express permission from the publisher to create a derivative work."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Dianne (profile), Nov 25th, 2009 @ 5:23pm

    Copyright

    Can you take a pdf copy of a textbook that the publisher gave you and convert it to Word and place it on the Internet for students to download as homework?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    allison wheat, Dec 15th, 2009 @ 10:33am

    copyright

    Ok, I have a question. If I were to take several different textbooks, compile all of the information and not use one specifically and type it up, bound it, and give it to my students as a "textbook" for my class, but gave all of these sources credit. How many laws would I be violating? Is there any way I could do this to make it legal? I want to do this for my classes, because there is no one single text that covers everything I want to cover. Currently my students are using 4 different textbooks and to 16 year olds this is mind boggling.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2010 @ 6:01pm

    Textbook publishers are putting the giddy back into ligitious.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    alex, Apr 30th, 2010 @ 9:37pm

    Haaaha!

    OMG i hope it works
    !!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Donna Shelley, Aug 19th, 2010 @ 7:07am

    Derivative rights

    Yes, pretty strange stuff. I sincerely hope that I do not have the distinct misfortune of having a student who relied on canned answers to make his or her way through medical school as my next doctor.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This