[od-discuss] ISO Codes

[Michael Roberts]

Hi Andrew,

> On 19 November 2014 14:54, Michael Roberts <michael.roberts at webfoundation.org <mailto:michael.roberts at webfoundation.org>> wrote:
> I wonder when we talk about factual - I understand a country as factual - Canada - but a country code (eg. CA)  is added value by ISO.
> 
> On what theory of 'facts' do you come to this conclusion? Do you think the designation CA is contingent and 'Canada' is not?  Why is the name Canada not the copyright of the state of Canada or Queen Elizabeth II or is there an indigenous knowledge claim by the Iroquois? Why is the name of Canada not added value from the Canadian government. Some countries do indeed rename themselves e.g Myanmar do those countries get copyright in their names because they have added value?

I’m not a legal expert, but building on the previous discussion on your point with regard to copyright law “For better or worse copyright law, which is at issue here, distinguishes between facts and original work, facts are not subject to copyright while original work is subject to copyright.”

In that sense creating a country code - CA or whatever one might want to call it seems at least like an original work to me.  The inclusion of Canada by ISO (which is the discussion at hand here) would appear at least to be something not of an original work by ISO at least. I have no idea if a country can copyright their name but I doubt ISO can copyright ‘Canada’, but ISO might have copyright over the original part of their work in developing codes that relate to a country.  Again, I’m not a lawyer, but it seems plausible to me.

Is there a conclusion then to this issue.  I’m getting the sense no one is absolutely clear.  
Perhaps its worth talking to the people at ISO directly.

Cheers,
Michael

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20141124/80a6add5/attachment-0003.html>