copyright derivative-work
How does copyright apply to rules, eg ISO standards?
<p>As I understand it, copyright applies to creative expression and not for examples rules of games.  Does this also apply to the ISO standards (<a href="https://www.iso.org/standard/30669.html" rel="noreferrer">example, costs CHF 158</a>)?  For example, could one re-write the standards in one's own words and sell them in competition with ISO?  Or is there something that would prevent this, perhaps something like <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_in_compilation" rel="noreferrer">Copyright in compilation</a>?</p>

<h2>Expression vs Idea</h2>
<blockquote>
<p>As I understand it, copyright applies to creative expression and not for examples rules of games.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That is not correct as stated. Game rule, or more exactly the fixed expression of a set of game rule (what one finds in the package of a commercial game, or in  a book such as <em>Hoyle's Rules of Games</em>, can be and usually are protected by copyright. What is <strong>not</strong> protected is the <strong>ideas</strong>  expressed in a set of rules. These are sometimes called &quot;game mechanics&quot;. For example it is a rule of bridge that 13 cards are dealt to each of 4 players. That is a fact, and so is not protected by copyright. But the exact wording of the official <em>Laws of Duplicate Bridge</em> is protected.</p>
<h3>&quot;creativity&quot; vs &quot;originality&quot;</h3>
<p>Many things that might not be considered very creative are protected. US Copyright law calls not for creativity, but for an <strong>original work</strong>. The concepts of  &quot;creativity&quot; and &quot;originality&quot; have a significant overlap, but are not at all the same.</p>
<p>For example, a person might watch a baseball game and write down  play-by-play account of it. That might not be very creative, but it would still be protected by copyright. But the event of the game are facts, and not protected. Someone else might describe the same game in different words, covering the same facts, and that would not be copyright infringement.</p>
<p>Another example. A person writes a scientific paper describing in detail a series of chemical experiments and the results obtained. That is not very creative (although the design of the experiments might be). It would, however, be protected by copyright. But the facts and ideas would not be protected. Another person could desacribe the same experiments in different words, and that would not be an infringement of copyright.</p>
<h3>Merger Doctrine</h3>
<p>In extreme cases, such as a basic recipe, there is no expression temperate from the facts. In such a case the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea%E2%80%93expression_distinction#Merger_doctrine" rel="nofollow noreferrer">&quot;merger doctrine&quot;</a>  applies, and there is no copyright protection at all.</p>
<h2>Standards</h2>
<p>Standards, such as ISO standards, are normally protected by copyright. But the ideas expressed in them are not. And since
standards are highly factual, the protection afforded to them is particularly narrow. But when one is testing compliance with a standard, the exact words of the standard may be important. A compliance officer is not likely to accept a paraphrase as a valid substitute.</p>
<h3>Standards in Laws</h3>
<p>The actual text of laws (and regulations), however (Federal, state, or local) is never protected by copyright. All are in the public domain. So when a law incorporated and reprints a standard, as is often done with fire and building codes,  anyone may freely reproduce the codes as set down as part of  law, even through the code has been copyrighted and indeed registered, as long as the source is the text of an enacted law or regulation.</p>

<p>“In your own words” would be fine. Trouble might come from another source. If you make people believe that the contents of your document is equivalent to a standard, but it isn’t, that could be a problem. And of course you need to be careful that your document is not a derivative work.</p>
