[nightcracker]

Copying the question text verbatim certainly is copyright infringement (and I would guess unlikely to be fair use, but I'm not a lawyer). If you give the problem in your own words, it won't be, just like your solution isn't.

[rectang]

Giving the problem "in your own words" raises the question of whether or not your restatement constitutes a derivative work.

From the 1976 Copyright Act section 101:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101

> A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work".

[TheJoeMan]

Chegg seems to have sorted this out with textbook questions?

[captn3m0]

They license it I think.

[moeris]

That's not how copyright works. Simply rewording each question will still violate copyright when you're copying all of the questions. I couldn't just reword Harry Potter and republish all of the novels. Likewise, copying some small portion may fall under fair use.

[Cederfjard]

On the contrary, I’m fairly sure you could do that with the Harry Potter books. What jurisdiction are you in?

[TheNewsIsHere]

I believe (and I’m not a legal expert here), that what the commenter is alluding to is the “moral rights” over a work. This is more common in the UK and Canada. When I worked for a Canadian company (I’m a U.S. American) part of our IP release for works-for-hire included a waiver/transfer of rights specifically for the “moral” or “authors” rights, which were explained as being the “spirit” or “whole” of works we created.

It’s a legal construct, but I was never satisfied with that explanation. The gist was that while we could transform things that we learned or did, we could not re-use the ideas that formed the functioning product in other works elsewhere, even by transformation.

[mananaysiempre]

Doesn’t the Berne convention specifically make moral rights inalienable? The whole point being that you may transfer redistribution rights, etc. to somebody else, but they still don’t get to (affirmatively) claim they wrote it (thus can’t even try to pressure you to allow it)? Am I misunderstanding or is the local (and likely original) definition of “moral rights” different from the one in the convention?

[checkyoursudo]

That is how copyright works. I believe you are thinking of plagiarism, which isn't the same thing.