I have been following the review process of a replication journal

In particular, it has an open review which can be seen.

On a particular submission they are having a debate about whether copying equations and their explanation in a paper counts as copyright infringement.

I would like to ask this question here, since the answer seems non-obvious.

Equations, by themselves, since they are ideas, should be free from copyright infringement. But to have equations, explanations, replica of figures, and discussion, would basically be a copy of the paper, and I imagine that would be copyright infringement. Where exactly can a line be drawn?

Note: There are questions on stack exchange which ask similar questions, but often in context of building up on previous research. Since the point of such a journal is just to replicate, it would seems that the aim is to build a freely available copy of the existing (perhaps paywalled, copyrighted) material, that can be freely accessed, and this is different intent than regular articles.

Also, answers regarding plagiarism aren’t much help in this case as the point is to do “explicit plagiarism” with proper attribution.

Crossposted to law.SE

Suppose I want to provide “smart” (AI, meaning extraction etc.) search over many published papers (specifically, biological) to simplify researchers’ live.

Now, I have access to my university library that contains text of many papers from different sources, including those with payed subscription.

Is it legal to download all papers, analyse them and provide search without disclosing full text of the paper, only small part of text or image and with proper citation?

I would like to use a figure from a U.S. government publication in a research paper that I will submit for publication in a journal.

In particular, I would like to use Figure IV-1 from JP 4-03.

From this post it seems like you have to get permission when reprinting figures, but my reading of Section 3.1.2 on this government website dealing with copyright seems to say that there is no copyright on the publication.

If this is the case, will a caption like the following:

Fig. 1  Notional overland fuel distribution, reprinted from Joint Publication 4-03,
        Joint Bulk Petroleum and Water Doctrine (U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2016)

where I cite the publication and make it clear it is not my own image be sufficient?

I’m trying to change the numbers in problems I write for examples I use in my class as well as assignments. However the problems are still inspired by the textbook. Are the problems sufficiently different from the textbook problems to not have copyright issues? There is also an issue of theorems and definitions. Authors of the calculus textbook certainly did not come up with these things. Is it OK to just copy them down in my lecture notes?

By the way I do share my lecture notes on Piazza and the course I’m teaching is multivariable calculus.

I am building an online library, where professors will be submitting academic work (text and multimedia).

I want to find the right CC license. The work provided by the library can be shared and anybody can build upon it for commercial or non-commercial purposes, as long as they give credit to the professor. But the original work must remain un-edited. So, CC-BY-ND fits this description, but there is a part that worries me. If anybody can “remix or transform” the material, what is stopping them from changing the article and re-share it as their own, or claim that is the original?

Is there any way that CC-BY-ND protects me from this danger, or should I use another copyright licence?

Thanks

A company approached me for an interview to explain my work, which has been published as part of my PhD. As I understand from their email, they want to understand my work so that they can use it. However, nowhere in the email they mentioned that I am going to be paid or involved in this project. How would you approach this?

I find this email strange because they are asking me to explain my work and give them information on how to implement it so that they can make money out of it without me having any role in their project. Is this normal? Should I ask to be paid?

A company approached me for an interview to explain my work, which has been published as part of my PhD. As I understand from their email, they want to understand my work so that they can use it. However, nowhere in the email they mentioned that I am going to be paid or involved in this project. How would you approach this?

I find this email strange because they are asking me to explain my work and give them information on how to implement it so that they can make money out of it without me having any role in their project. Is this normal? Should I ask to be paid?