Further, if in fact your standard was the only possibility (and so we can't have a different standard), there was in fact no creative element to your standard,

Further, if in fact your standard was the only possibility (and so we can't have a different standard), there was in fact no creative element to your standard, and so it not only isn't protected from copying and redistribution for the purpose of informing people as to the law, but never protected at all since it had no creative element. And yes, in practice we see that there is much more demand for relatively compact, opinionated books about something standard (e.g. "Beautiful C++" the most recent book from Kate Gregory) than there is for the large volumes of tremendously dry technical documentation which makes up the standard itself, a draft of which (nobody who matters cares about the "official" document) is here: https://timsong-cpp.github.io/cppwp/ https://timsong-cpp.github.io/cppwp/ I'd guess that you'll shift way more of a video course on the correct use of fire extinguishers than you would of a dry document specifying exactly how many litres of what retardants shall be provided to fight a fire of so-and-such proportions. Just make sure you don't persuade legislators to make watching your video a legal requirement and you can sell those for a nice healthy profit.