[bradleyland]

> Your logic is flawed here.

It might be, but we're talking law, not logic. Copyright law has no obligation to logic.

> TPT is selling lesson plans and live teaching materials, not books. (Or at least they could reasonably make this argument)

They can call them moon modules, and it wouldn't matter. Copyright law has no concept of "book" or "lesson plan". Copyright protects the work. It doesn't matter if you're redistributing prints of a photo, or selling a JPG over the internet. Copying and redistributing a copyrighted work (in any form) is the violation.

> Also, the packages typically include references.

As do many books, but it doesn't exempt them from copyright obligations.

> Teachers using these materials should be aware that they are potentially infringing on copyright, thus could be sued.

This is where you have it backwards. The teachers who use the materials (probably) aren't breaking any laws by using the materials. They're covered by the teaching exemption. TPT, however, has copied and distributed the works in exchange for money. That is a pretty clear violation of copyright expectation.

> Like I said, TPT could be saved via DMCA, and the teachers are the ones that could be sued. The teachers would then be protected by the teaching exception. My point was that the lawsuit is not an obvious winner.

TPT, being in the position of a facilitator, might be safe, but there are two types of teachers in this equation. There are teachers using the lesson plans, and teachers selling the lesson plans. Those selling the lesson plans are at risk, IMO.

Simply being in the teaching profession doesn't automatically exempt you from copyright law. Laws are largely concerned with acts and context. Copying and distribution are both acts. If the context is that of teaching (as in the act of teaching, not the employment), then there is an exemption. Specifically, a teacher may copy and distribute (by incorporating it and showing it to students) a copyrighted work without penalty, provided the teacher is in the act of teaching.

I agree that the lawsuit is not a slam dunk -- very few lawsuits are -- but I don't think this for the same reasons as you.

[jcampbell1]

My apologies for my previous comments. I was completely forgetting about the teachers that are selling stuff. I justifiably feel quite stupid now.

I fully agree that there are teachers on this site ripping off copyrighted materials and making a profit from doing so. They can and should be sued, and they will likely have no protection from their school districts nor unions.

I am tempted to find out who this person making $1M and find the dinosaur drawings in the dinosaur lesson plan, and then find who paid the illustrator to draw these things and let them know they are someone is making $1M on their back.

You have successfully reversed my opinion on this company 180 degrees.

[ktsmith]

> I am tempted to find out who this person making $1M and find the dinosaur drawings in the dinosaur lesson plan, and then find who paid the illustrator to draw these things and let them know they are someone is making $1M on their back.

It's also possible that particular plan author is doing everything by the book. There are plans that I've seen that are using properly licensed materials or that use original artwork. My wife is putting together some plans that contain her original materials and illustrations created specifically for the plan by another teacher as an example.

The reason for my comment at the top of this thread is largely due to the number of plans that appear to be not compliant with copyright law and continuing press about how much money some (very few) individuals have made on the site. I have no opinion on any suits resulting from use of the site being winnable for either side.