However, if it states the facts in exactly the same way, that could be considered infringing because of the creativity presumably involved in deciding how to st

However, if it states the facts in exactly the same way, that could be considered infringing because of the creativity presumably involved in deciding how to state each fact. "Elephants are enormous mammals, usually grey in color, with significant intelligence and social habits. They are native to portions of Africa and Asia, with different elephant species found in each region. They are famous for their strong and dexterous trunks, which can also be used to communicate something like a trumpet. Humans, especially in South Asia, have long admired elephants and used them for transportation and various kinds of work; African elephants are famous for having been ridden to war by the Carthaginians, to the dismay of their Roman opponents. Today elephants are significantly threatened by various human activities, both those intentionally directed at the elephants (like killing them for meat or for the ivory derived from their tusks) and those not deliberately meant to affect them (like deforestation). While our word for elephants comes from the Greek, it was probably borrowed by the ancient Greeks from another language family." I just wrote this paragraph about elephants based on my own knowledge. There is no copyrightability of the substantive information here (e.g. if you learned something new about elephants, you can tell other people) but there is probably some copyrightability of the paragraph based on things like the creativity of my word choices. That distinction can sometimes create confusion in discussions about "facts", and I'm not positive that legal standards that are meant to clarify it have always given a clear and workable rule.