@Jeffro:
It is true that basic information, for example a list of numbers, can’t be copyrighted, but the way facts are presented can still be subject to copyright.
Only if the way that it is presented is in itself considerably transformative or has some creative input. That is indeed hairy to figure out, for example, a YouTube video presenting facts in an artful manner is typically copyrightable, but the facts themselves aren't, but if the judge/jury doesn't find your presentation to be sufficiently creative (eg. if anyone can make a similar looking video), then it may not be copyrightable. If it's just a print-out compilation on a piece of paper, facts and utilitarian language can't receive copyright protection.
It is not the case that descriptions of facts can’t be copyrighted.Not sure what that even means in the legal context. There are facts (basically a list of things that happened) and then there is a narrative where someone gives opinion or commentary. The narrative/opinion MAY be copyrightable, the list of facts isn't.
Documents that become public record do not automatically fall into public domain, i.e., you can’t start selling copies of someone else’s copyrighted work just because the document was used in a court case.
Yes, you can. There are a number of cases about that. Using copyrightable material in a lawsuit is fair use. Requesting those legal documents for any reason, even if you want to sell the result, is also fair use and is required to be allowed by law. Hence why in these cases, the opposing parties typically object to publishing the entire thing into evidence (eg. a book), and the judge will typically only allow excerpts relevant to the case and seal the evidence. Unless, and this is the case where this was established, you describe a murder in a book, the judge allowed the entire book into evidence, and yes, that entire book is available.
There is also an entire argument going on in the courts as some courts are illegally establishing copyright on case files.
I didn't realize this. Must be new, I know many manuals, back in the day, did not have any copyright. You can't find any publisher eg in the old blood and custody booklets they produced, the old elder's manual (I think these were published in the 70s and 80s) only had a publisher and no copyright notice (this was when copyright still had to be established by sending a copy into the LOC)is claim about the Watch Tower Society not claiming copyright over the ‘elder’s manual’ is entirely false. Where the entire book has been copied, they have had it removed from sites. However they would have no case where a snippet of the book is used along with commentary, which is fair use. Publication information is explicitly stated in the book