Hi,
I am looking for information on whether a for-profit company in the
business of teaching students on any subject can use another company's
published textbooks or is it a copyright violation. When private
schools use a publisher's (e.g. McGraw Hill) texbooks, do they have to
secure permission from McGraw Hill to do that? Probably not.. McGraw
Hill must be happy that they are selling more textbooks because this
school's students will buy them. If that is true, then does an
independent for-profit company need Princeton Review's permission to
start a GMAT test prep course where they use Princeton Review's guide
while teaching their students? Are they violating copyright laws in
any way if they do not seek Princeton Review's permission?

---

Request for Question Clarification by pafalafa-ga on 02 Oct 2005 12:27 PDT

A book is a book...I can't see any problems with using any book of
your choosing a teaching materials.  Private schools, after all, are
run like a business and may well be turning a profit.

You could run into copyright problems IF you were to copy any portions
of a text, as say, handouts for the class.

You might also run into trademark problems if you were to advertise
your course in some way that mentioned Princeton Review, or otherwise
caused some confusion as to whether your course was or was not an
'official' Princeton
Review course.  


What sort of information would you like on this topic to make for a
complete answer to your question?

Let us know.


pafalafa-ga

---

Clarification of Question by yanarp-ga on 02 Oct 2005 14:27 PDT

Thanks for your message. I bascially want to find out if I can use
their material without their formal permission while teaching my
students. Can I say on my website and marketing material that the text
material I use will be Princeton Review's latest SAT prep guide and so
on. I do not mind saying that we are not affiliated with Princeton
Review in any way, but I do not want to recreate the content that they
already have produced. Please let me know if this clarifies things.

---

Request for Question Clarification by pafalafa-ga on 02 Oct 2005 15:44 PDT

Let me tell you a story, taken from memory, so I'm not 100% sure of
the details, but the gist of it is this:

Years ago, Radio Shack sued a company calling itself Auto Shack,
saying the name infringed on the Radio Shack trademark.  Auto Shack
did not want to go up against an industry giant in court, and promptly
changed its name.

Sometime later, Radio Shack sued another Shack-named business.  This
one fought back, they went to court, and Radio Shack lost!

In all likeliehood, Auto Shack probably could have kept their name as
well, but they chose to avoid the battle.

The upshot of all this is:  in my own estimation (as a non-legal
professional...see the disclaimer, below), you would be OK using the
PR book, and mentioning its use in your website or other publicity. 
The "not affiliated with" language wouldn't hurt.

HOWEVER, there's nothing stopping PR from filing a complaint.  If they
did, you would have to decide to back down and change to another text
(which may not entail a great deal of consequence for you), or fight
them in court.

There are simply no guarantees when it comes to who is going to take
umbrage at what in the business world.

Does that help clear things up?


paf

I am not a lawyer (nor a Google Answers Researcher) but I don't think
*copyright* laws are necessarily relevant here. Provided that you're
talking about buying the legally-published editions of existing books
(or making the students buy them) and not taking one copy and making
photocopies of relevant sections (for which you *would* need
permission from the publisher,) then this isn't really a case
involving copyright.

It might be a case involving the other intellectual property concept
of trademark (depending on what usages Princeton Review may claim
trademarks for) or it might just be a case of Princeton Review's
business practices (if they do, could, or would sell their materials
to a somewhat competitive business) but it may not be about copyright
here...