Professor Sues Colleague Over Copied Class Material

When it comes to academic integrity, most of the focus, understandably, is put on the students. 

However, instructors are also responsible for generating a great deal of content as well. Syllabi, slides, assignments, quizzes/tests, and handouts are just a few examples of what instructors have to make for their classes.

So what happens when an instructor copies their work from a colleague? Not only does this raise potential issues of plagiarism and academic dishonesty, but it also raises potential copyright issues.

Though such cases are relatively rare, the Copyright Claims Board (CCB) recently ruled in just such a case. It pitted two professors at the same university against one another, a fight over the reuse of class materials and a supposedly implied license to use them.

Though a CCB ruling isn’t binding to other courts, this is still a very important case and one that instructors, in particular, should pay attention to. That’s because it sharpens focus on the copyright protections that classroom materials enjoy and how the courts may examine their use.

Background of the Case

The case was filed by April Peck against the respondent, Keiry Borruel. Both Peck and Borruel work in the psychology department at Victor Valley College (VVC) in California.

Borruel was hired by the school in 2021 and began teaching full-time in 2022. Peck, the chair of the psychology department, assigned Borruel to teach a research class for the Spring 2022 semester. Peck had taught that class previously and, in a bid to help Borruel get a head start, gave her full access to the materials she used when she taught the class in 2020.

However, in October 2023, things took a turn. That was when Peck sent an email to Borruel saying that, “it was never the expectation that you would use the materials in perpetuity with or without attribution.”

Borruel responded the same day, saying that she had created her own materials, and the only material remaining was links to videos created by Peck. This seemed, for a time, to resolve the issue with Peck accepting Borruel’s apology and being satisfied that her material had been removed.

However, in March 2024, Peck said she learned that Borruel “continued to rely” on her materials. Borruel denied this and accused Peck of creating a “hostile environment.” Borruel further claimed that the only materials that remained were five articles not written by Peck. Regardless, Borruel said she swapped those articles out for newer ones.

Both sides then filed grievances against the other with the school. Peck filed a complaint about the use of her material, and Borruel filed a complaint accusing Peck of harassment. It is unclear what, if any, action the school took in the matter other than removing Peck from the tenure committee and allowing Borruel to move her office away from Peck’s.

In September 2024, Peck filed the claim with the CCB. The case was quickly accepted, and Peck served Borruel later that same month. Borruel filed a response in January 2025, and the case began to move forward. 

In its final determination, the CCB ultimately sided with Borruel, dismissing the claim with prejudice. 

The CCB’s Ruling

The CCB’s ruling was completely one-sided. It sided with Borruel, even going as far as to say, “it is unclear how this dispute rose to the level of a lawsuit, especially after the parties’ general conflict was brought before VVC’s administrators.”

Basically, the CCB found that, since Peck gave Borruel complete access to the work, she had an implied license to use it for the purpose of teaching that class. Since she stopped after Peck asked her to (or at least there was no evidence that she continued to use the material), no infringement occurred.

According to the CCB, though Peck may not have intended for her work to be used this way, the board ruled that her actions and the situation gave Borruel a reasonable expectation that she had a license. 

The board also ruled that Borruel’s apologies were not an admission of liability. They said it was “nothing more than an attempt by a new professor not to get on the bad side of a difficult boss who controlled her future and her possibility for tenure.” 

Since having a license, even an implied one, is a defense against a claim of copyright infringement, the board sided with Borruel and dismissed the claim with prejudice. 

That said, this case could have gone very differently if Peck had made her expectations clearer (and in writing) and had not provided unrestricted access to her material. If she truly didn’t want her work used in this way, she had opportunities from the outset to set those boundaries, and she didn’t.

From a copyright standpoint, this is a lesson on making your intentions clear from the beginning. Firm, written boundaries likely would have prevented this from becoming a dispute at all and would have given Peck better standing if it had.

The Plagiarism Question

There is still one potentially thorny question that the CCB didn’t (and couldn’t) address: the issue of plagiarism.

Peck accused Borruel of using her work without attribution. Typically, instructors are supposed to cite and attribute outside sources that appear in class materials. This not only sets a good example of citation, but is standard research/academic integrity practice.

To that end, some of the evidence Peck provides does show that her name and information were removed from some of the documents Borruel removed. However, without seeing the entire packet as the student received it, it’s difficult to make a final judgment.

Still, I think that this does raise a reasonable concern. While I agree with the CCB on the copyright issues, it’s difficult to ignore that these documents should have been cited to their original authors, even if those authors are at the same school. It wouldn’t have taken much work to include a citation and would have eliminated any academic integrity issues.

To be clear, I don’t think it’s strange that Borruel would use Peck’s material to tech the class. Borruel had never taught a class before, let alone that one, and Peck’s material was a natural starting point.

But Peck’s authorship should have been acknowledged, and though I can’t make a final judgment with the evidence at hand, I can definitely say that Borruel could have done more in this space.

Bottom Line

In the end, this case really highlights the separation between copyright and plagiarism. Copyright is a set of commercial rights to reproduce a work in various ways. Plagiarism deals solely with ethics and citation. Though there is overlap between the two, not every instance of plagiarism constitutes an infringement, and vice versa.

This case may be a plagiarism issue. Borruel clearly didn’t go out of her way to cite Peck and, depending on other factors, may not have done so at all. While I don’t think she did this maliciously, especially given how new she is to teaching, it remains a legitimate concern.

But copyright was never going to be a good fit. Though Peck does clearly retain the copyright to her work, when you grant such broad access to your work in this particular context, you’re creating an expectation that it will be used at least in some way.

But even if Peck had won this case, there wasn’t a massive payday coming on the other side. The CCB has shown that it ties statutory damages to actual damages. Unfortunately, there aren’t any actual damages in this case. As such, Peck would have likely been awarded just $750 in damages, the statutory minimum.

Truthfully, this case should never have left the university. Any elements of this dispute that require resolution could have been and should have been resolved there. A copyright infringement lawsuit, even with the CCB, was not the best course of action.

Still, the case should serve as a reminder that classroom materials are not immune to either copyright or academic integrity concerns. It’s important to be thinking about these issues, even when working on materials for students.