Copyright In Auto-Generated Private School Syllabi.

27 Feb 2026 --
0 Comments

1. Introduction: Copyright and Syllabi

Copyright protects original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Traditionally, this includes books, articles, lesson plans, and other educational content. The question arises when the syllabus is auto-generated using software, AI tools, or other automated methods.

Key points:

Originality is crucial. Mere compilation or selection of facts may not qualify unless there is creative expression.

Authorship matters. Copyright requires a human author; works created purely by machines without human intervention may not be protected.

Compilation protection might apply if there is creative selection or arrangement of the syllabus content.

2. Copyright Principles Relevant to Syllabi

Originality Requirement:

The work must originate from the author and possess minimal creativity.

Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, 499 U.S. 340 (1991): A telephone directory with mere facts was not copyrightable because originality was lacking.

Implication: A syllabus listing standard topics may not be protected, but the selection, organization, or presentation could be.

Human Authorship Requirement:

Works generated purely by AI may not have human authorship.

Thaler v. Comptroller General of Patents, UK (2021) discussed whether AI can be an “author” — generally, the court rejected AI as a legal author.

Implication: Auto-generated syllabi without substantial human input may not qualify for copyright.

Derivative Works:

If a syllabus is adapted from copyrighted textbooks, it may be a derivative work.

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994): Transformative use can be copyrightable even when based on a prior work.

Implication: Creative adaptation of content can earn protection.

3. Case Law Examples

Case 1: Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service (1991, US Supreme Court)

Facts: Rural Telephone Service produced a white pages directory; Feist copied it.

Ruling: Facts are not copyrightable; compilation is protected only if there is original selection or arrangement.

Relevance: A syllabus auto-generated by AI that simply lists topics may lack originality, but a syllabus that creatively sequences topics may qualify.

Case 2: Thaler v. Comptroller General of Patents (2021, UK)

Facts: Patents filed for inventions “created by AI” with no human intervention.

Ruling: Courts held that AI cannot be recognized as an author; only humans can hold copyright.

Relevance: Auto-generated syllabi may be ineligible for copyright if the human contribution is minimal.

Case 3: University of London Press v. University Tutorial Press (1916, UK)

Facts: University presses argued copyright in exam papers.

Ruling: Copyright applies to original works of skill and labor.

Relevance: Even academic content like syllabi can be protected if it reflects judgment, skill, and labor in selecting topics.

Case 4: Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music (1994, US Supreme Court)

Facts: 2 Live Crew created a parody of “Oh, Pretty Woman.”

Ruling: Transformative use may be fair use and copyrightable if it adds new expression, meaning, or message.

Relevance: A syllabus that creatively restructures or adds educational commentary could be copyrightable.

Case 5: Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. (1999, US District Court)

Facts: Photographs of public domain artworks were copied.

Ruling: Exact reproductions without creative input lack originality, so not copyrightable.

Relevance: Auto-generated syllabi that mechanically reproduce content without modification may not qualify.

Case 6: Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America, Inc. (1983, US Court of Appeals)

Facts: Nintendo’s game code was copied.

Ruling: Expression, not ideas, is protected; functional aspects or ideas cannot be copyrighted.

Relevance: A syllabus that merely lists course objectives (ideas) is not protected, but a syllabus with creative explanations or layouts may be.

4. Applying Principles to Auto-Generated Private School Syllabi

Factor	Copyrightability
Pure AI generation, no human input	Likely not protected (Thaler v. Comptroller)
Human arranges AI-generated topics creatively	Protected as original compilation (Feist)
Syllabus adapts copyrighted textbooks	May be derivative work; requires permission unless transformative (Campbell)
Lists standard, factual content	Not protected (Atari, Feist)
Includes creative teaching notes, custom examples	Protected (University of London Press)

Key Takeaways:

Human creativity matters: The more human editorial input in sequencing, annotations, or commentary, the more copyrightable the syllabus.

Facts vs. expression: Listing topics or dates is not enough; creative explanation, arrangement, or design is necessary.

AI-assisted works: If AI simply generates content but humans curate and enhance it, copyright can subsist in the human contribution, not the AI itself.