US Copyright Question
<p>Let’s say I want to create a website that helps people troubleshoot a topic. I get my facts and information from site A, and use that info to write my own articles (Not copying word for word, but stating the same ideas).</p>
<p>Site A has this policy: &quot;Any duplication or use of images, diagrams, or text, or other electronic or printed publications is not permitted without the prior written agreement by Site A.&quot;</p>
<p>Copyright.gov says this: &quot;Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed.&quot;</p>
<p>So am I allowed to take the facts and information from Site A and use it on my own site? I will not take their images or interpretation of the facts, but just the facts themselves. And I will write my own articles and &quot;fluf&quot; based on the facts.</p>
<p>Note: I live in the US</p>
<hr />
<p>EDIT:</p>
<p>I tried to add this as a comment but it was too long.</p>
<p>So my current understanding is that facts in lists of obvious order cannot be copyrighted, but their explanations or instructions can be.</p>
<p>So can I do this?</p>
<p><strong>SITE A:</strong></p>
<p>How to fix a black screen on your computer</p>
<p>Fixing a black screen can be quite easy! Just follow these simple steps.</p>
<ol>
<li>Restart by holding down the power key for 5 seconds (This can help refresh the system if something is not working right)</li>
<li>Remove the battery, then replace it (This can help remove all background operations)</li>
<li>Throw it out the window because there is nothing else you can do to fix it</li>
</ol>
<p><strong>My Site</strong></p>
<p>This guide will show you how to fix a black screen on your computer!</p>
<ul>
<li>Try holding down the power button for five seconds to reset the device.</li>
<li>If that does not work, try removing, then replacing the battery. Doing this can help stop any tasks your computer may be running.</li>
<li>If the above steps don't work, bring your computer to a repair shop for further analysis.</li>
</ul>

<p>copyright.gov is the oficial site of the US Copyriuht office, and is here quoting <a href="https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#102" rel="nofollow noreferrer">17 USC 102(b)</a> which is the actual copyright law. Under it, copyright protection extends to expression, but not to any idea, etc.</p>
<p>However, these are not in conflict, because using information or ideas from a work to create a new and original work is not &quot;<em>duplication or use of images, diagrams, or text, or other electronic or printed publications</em>&quot; so Site A is also correct.</p>
<p>However, a <em><strong>close paraphrase</strong></em> where the words are changed but the sentence and paragraph structure of a text is followed, presenting the same ideas in the same order in sentences of the same structure in the same order, may constitute a <em><strong>derivative work</strong></em>, and thus a copyright infringement.</p>
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Close_paraphrasing" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Wikipedia describes &quot;close paraphrase&quot;</a> as: &quot;... the superficial modification of material from another source.&quot; It goes on to give an example:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Facts and ideas cannot be protected by copyright, but creative expression is protected. The test of creativity is minimal.</p>
<p>Hilaire Belloc's 1897 <em>More Beasts: (for Worse Children)</em> illustrates creative expression in his description of a llama:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The Llama is a woolly sort of fleecy hairy goat, with an indolent expression and an undulating throat; like an unsuccessful literary man.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>If this somewhat dubious source was used for the article on llamas and was still protected by copyright, it would be acceptable to say that the llama is an animal with a shaggy coat, and perhaps that it has a long neck. These are facts. But use of the phrases &quot;indolent expression&quot; and &quot;undulating throat&quot; might violate copyright. The original choice of words is part of Belloc's creative expression. Going further, the simile &quot;like an unsuccessful literary man&quot; is also creative, and is also protected. A clumsy paraphrase like &quot;resembling a failed writer&quot; might violate copyright even though the words are entirely different. More than the facts have been copied.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So when the question reads:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>am I allowed to take the facts and information from Site A and use it on my own site?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There answer is: &quot;Yes, but the rewriting must be more than superficial, A mere substitution o synonyms will not do, the expressive structure must also be rewritten.&quot;</p>
<p>However, if the expressive structure is simply a list of facts in an obvious order, such as alphabetical or chronological there is no copyright at all on either the words or the structure. see <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co." rel="nofollow noreferrer">Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991)</a></p>
<p><strong>edit</strong></p>
<p>The scenario added by edit looks reasonable. In this case it would seem that the operator of &quot;my site&quot; has probably not infringed the copyright on &quot;Site A&quot;.</p>

united-states copyright