1.

2. No, it is a mere data or fact i.e. textbook knowledge, upon analyzing the text it
could be something that one can encounter from a trip to a doctor, nutritionist,
dieticians, or simply reading a book related to the subject matter, it can also
most likely be encountered on the internet upon searching related topics related
to the subject matter, at most what could be copyrightable is the manner of the
textbook knowledge was presented.
3. Yes, if it is to be presented as a blue print to the client. Although originality
triumphs creativity in the context of intellectual property blue prints are present
in the copyrighted works in our Intellectual Property Code with that being said
what matters is that the final output was a product of his own design everything
else was a mere supplement to his own final output but if it was still in the stage
of design meaning it was still in the idea or concept stages then no.
4. Yes, only if Marys forms has a distinction in the way the facts were selected,
coordinated, arranged and presented and only if it was copied in full detail.
5. No, it is known as a new version it is a type of derivative work it merely
represents an original work of authorship, it is not an original work but it is still
protected by copyright but not original.
6. Yes. It is true that facts are not protected but the facts that she had collected
are subject to fit a purpose of her own original design which was specifically
selected coordinated, arranged, and presented.
7. No, the phrase cannot be a subject of intellectual effort meaning it is
something that is not unique in a way that it will not cause confusion for example
although there are no gnus here in the Philippines if there was a instance that
there were gnus, probably in a zoo and in need of financial support they the
chances of the charity being named gnu project is there. If this was done in the
US chances are yes.