The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana dismissed with prejudice all claims brought by plaintiff author Keith Bell against Bartholomew Consolidated School Corporation and one of its teachers and allowed them to seek attorneys’ fees. Bell, the author of the book Winning Isn’t Normal and the owner of the copyright in the work, filed suit after a March 2022 social media repost involving a passage from his work.
The parties
The dispute centered on the conduct of one Timothy Bless, a high school teacher and football coach employed by the school system. Bless was not acting on behalf of the school in any official capacity when the events occurred. Instead, he used his personal X account, which he controlled independently. On that account, Bless reposted a post originally made by a college football coach. The post contained an image of one of Bell’s well-known motivational passages. Bless did not add any commentary or attempt to connect the repost to the school or any official activity.
Bell alleged that this repost violated copyright law and a prior settlement agreement between the parties. He also brought claims for vicarious liability against the school and for violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. He sought damages and a finding that the defendants had used his copyrighted work without authorization.
The court’s decision – fair use
The court rejected all of Bell’s claims. The central issue was whether Bless’s repost constituted copyright infringement. The court concluded that it did not because the repost qualified as fair use. In reaching this conclusion, the court focused heavily on the purpose and context of Bless’s actions. It found that Bless shared the passage to motivate or inspire student athletes, not for any commercial purpose. There was no evidence that he profited from the repost or used it in connection with any business activity. This noncommercial and educational context weighed strongly in favor of fair use.
The court also considered the nature of the work and the amount used. While the passage had some creative elements, it largely consisted of familiar motivational ideas. Although Bless reposted the entire passage, the court found that copying the whole excerpt was reasonable because its full text was necessary to convey its inspirational message. The fact that the passage was already widely available online further supported this conclusion.
Most importantly, the court found no plausible harm to the market for Bell’s work. There was no indication that the repost reduced sales of the book or related merchandise. If anything, the court suggested that widespread sharing of the passage could increase interest in Bell’s work rather than diminish it. Because market harm is often the most significant factor in fair use analysis, this finding strongly supported the court’s conclusion.
Other claims failed as well
The claims against the school also failed because Bell did not plausibly allege that the school itself copied the work or controlled Bless’s personal social media activity. The repost occurred on Bless’s private account, and there were no facts linking the school to that decision. The vicarious liability claim was dismissed as conclusory, and the DMCA claim failed because Bell did not adequately allege that copyright information had been knowingly removed. The breach of contract claim was also dismissed because Bell did not plausibly allege actionable use or damages.
Given Bell’s litigation history and the weakness of the claims, the court determined that any amendment would be futile and dismissed the case with prejudice. It also concluded that an award of attorneys’ fees was appropriate, in part to deter similar claims in the future.
Bell v. Bartholomew Consolidated School Corporation, 2026 WL 828677 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 26, 2026).