Are the individual terms of a contract copyrighted?
<p>I would like to make my own contract without having to pay a lawyer. Some websites, such as <a href="https://www.docracy.com/14/terms-of-service-of-docracy-com-tos" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Docracy</a>, explicitly say that you're allowed to use their contracts. I'm wondering, if you were to come across some random contract with a specific wording you really like for some common clause - like a severalbility clause - can you copy it or would that be infringing?</p>

<p>For example, say I already have my own contract. Can I see the no waiver clause on <a href="https://www.reddit.com/help/useragreement/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">reddit.com</a> and say, hey I like that, I'm adding it to mine!</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>If we do not enforce any right or provision in this user agreement,
  that is not to be deemed a waiver of our right to do so in the future.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Anything written that included a minimum of creativity is copyrighted unless someone explicitely put it in the public domain, or if the author has died many years ago. Contracts are protected by copyright, just like anything written. The waiver you quoted would involve creativity. Something like "I, Joe Smith, sell my car for $10,000 to James Miller" might be judged to involve no creativity (Ok, me writing this was creative. Writing it if your name is Joe Smith and you are selling your car for $10,000 to James Miller doesn't involve creativity). </p>

<p>Obviously if you and someone else both sign a contract, you are both bound by the terms of the contract. If you committed copyright infringement using the contract has nothing to do with legality of the contract. The lawyer whose copyright you are infringing can sue you for copyright infringement, but the contract is still valid. </p>

<p>Fun fact: The GPL, which is used by millions to allow software to be copied within some framework, is itself copyrighted, and that copyright will be strictly enforced if you make any changes to the text of the license. The obvious reason is that the authors don't want anyone to be tricked into accepting a license that they <em>think</em> is the GPL but is critically modified. </p>

copyright contract-law