Copyright protection for e-learning course

• It is possible to achieve copyright protection for e-learning courses.
   
• Copying another's course may constitute a breach of the relevant provision under the Norwegian Marketing Control Act regarding good business practices.
   
• Unlawful copying of another course may, among other things, result in:
   
  • Compensation claims based on a reasonable license fee, as well as damages for the harm caused by the infringement that would not have occurred with a license agreement; 
     
  • Compensation for damages resulting from the infringement; or 
     
  • Compensation equivalent to the infringer's gain obtained from the infringement, and

If the copying is committed intentionally or with gross negligence, the compensation claim may be even higher

In 2009, Trainor reported Approve.no to the police for unlawful copying of three of Trainor's e-learning courses. Approve.no promptly removed the courses, and the matter was not pursued further by the police or Trainor. On 17 June 2024, Trainor issued a notice of lawsuit to Approve.no, alleging that Approve.no had again copied three online courses. 

The parties agreed that Approve.no had copied the courses "EX – Sikkerhet og bevisstgjøring" and "FSE – Instruert personell", and the issue was whether Approve.no had also copied the course "EX Grunnleggende for elektropersonell". Approve.no argued that the immediate removal of the course in 2024 was due to the name, not the content. However, internal messages did not support this argument. 

The court noted the following in its evaluation of the alleged copying:

• Approve.no has copied Trainor's courses on multiple occasions;
   
• In both 2009 and 2024, following requests from Trainor's legal counsel, Approve.no promptly removed from the courses that Trainor claimed were imitated from its portals;
   
• Approve.no refused to present the manuscript for the disputed course; and
   
• An invoice with the text "Course & Content Development" alongside records that Trainor's course was accessed and executed multiple times from Asia, using the login information of Approve.no's general manager, indicated that the course was developed by copying Trainor's course. This same development method was also used for the two other copied courses.
   

The court concluded that all three courses constituted copyright infringement of Trainor's material and actions conflicting with standard business practices among traders.

Chiron was found jointly liable due to complicity. The court emphasized the following in its assessment of Chiron's involvement:

• Approve.no and Chiron have an internal agreement in which Chiron provides daily operations services to Approve.no;
   
• Approve.no and Chiron share the same general manager, who was responsible for the development and quality of the courses. Thus, both companies had knowledge of the development process of the courses;
   
• The general manager owns 100% of the shares in Chiron, while Chiron owns over 60% of the shares in Approve.no;
   
• The organizational and financial cooperation of the companies suggests they operate as one entity; and
   
• The companies present themselves as a joint enterprise externally.