[podric]

Should there be a way to trademark your own name in order to prevent its misuse in creative works? That way, film studios should have to pay a licensing fee to have your name anywhere in the film or its marketing material.

It's strange to think that fictional characters often have more protection and control over the use of their name than real people.

[briffle]

That would quickly be abused to silence critics as well. Imagine if Brock Turner trademarked his name, and went after anyone discussing his story.

Not to mention, your name is not unique. I know of at least 2 other people in the US with the same first and last name as me.

[rootusrootus]

> Imagine if Brock Turner trademarked his name

That's a separate and interesting discussion itself, IMO. On the one hand, how do you have sympathy for someone who does what he did? On the other hand, do we not believe in rehabilitation, redemption, or anything like that? It is getting easier to believe that the mania over Brock Turner has led to a disproportionate response. And to go against the mob is to risk becoming a pariah yourself. When the mob is the size of the Internet, this seems pretty scary.

[handelaar]

"Rehabilitation" usually comes after an appropriate criminal punishment being issued and received, not before. That reasonable people think that getting just twelve weeks in jail for his crimes -- which he at no point admitted -- is an offensive undersentencing in no way justifies their description as a "mob".

[rootusrootus]

That is a bit disingenuous. This isn't people thinking that the justice system should have slapped him down harder. This is people who drop into every thread where his name comes up and insist that it should never just be "Brock Turner", but rather "The Convicted Rapist Brock Turner."

Arguably the biggest argument in support of the justice system failing in this case is that it did not deter this kind of vigilante attitude; that is an important part of why the system exists in the first place.

[wonderwonder]

I agree with this. I have no idea if the guy was a terrible person or made a terrible decision in the moment and did what he did. Either way he deserved a punishment greater than he received. With that said he is portrayed in the media and social media as if he is the second coming of Hitler. A ton of people do far worse things and are allowed to continue with their lives after serving their time. If people are not allowed a chance at rehabilitation (within reason, I think some crimes are unforgivable, but not his) then we are a lesser society.

[hannasanarion]

Trademarks can't be used to go after people who mention your mark, only people who use it to promote their own commercial endeavors (and even then, subtle mentions like "compare to X" are generally ok).

If Brock Turner had a trademark, he could use it to block Brock Turner: The Movie, but not us on this forum talking about Brock Turner, convicted rapist.

[roflc0ptic]

For a laugh, I set my name as a google alert. I get stories about a meteorologist, a guy who woke up and had lost 20 years of memory, a CEO of a sports media company, some random person with the same name who works as a dog groomer friended me on FB. Really not sure how trademarking that would work out.

[sneak]

You don't own your reputation. That's out of your hands. You can not and should not be able to control what other people think and say about you.

[mikem170]

Not even if they are causing you real harm by lying?

Other countries don't allow as much of that as the U.S. does, like the U.K. for example [0]:

> "English laws are much more favorable for someone looking to protect their reputation," says Jenny Afia, a lawyer in London who often represents people making libel and privacy claims.

> In American courts, the burden of proof rests with the person who brings a claim of libel. In British courts, the author or journalist has the burden of proof, and typically loses.

> "So you've got the rich and powerful shutting down and chilling speech which is critical of them," says Stephens.

[0] https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/...

[sneak]

Spreading negative implication and opinion about a third party is and should remain protected expression.

Otherwise we quickly approach a world where we can be sued for negative product or service reviews.

[mikem170]

> Spreading negative implication and opinion about a third party is and should remain protected expression.

In the U.K. it is. You can publish the truth, and you can publish your opinion. You can't publish lies.

For someone to sue you in the U.K. they need to prove loss, and there are two defences for libel - the truth, and what the solicitors call "fair comment". You can say that your experience of XXX was poor. You can't say XXX is an idiot.

> Otherwise we quickly approach a world where we can be sued for negative product or service reviews.

I grant that is a definitely problem. This gets talked about in the U.K. I can't say I've heard about it as much in the U.S., and to be frank I am a little surprised, as often those with money use the courts to get bully people. Just brainstorming, but maybe that's a big chunk of the problem?

But I can't help thinking about how much the internet has changed everything. Our laws were designed when people actually interacted with each other face to face and there were a handful of printing presses per town. Now everyone has a worldwide printing press in their pocket, and it's all archived on the wayback machine, etc. High stakes stuff, especially if you get on the wrong side of it. Anybody can be arrested, or have the bad luck to be harassed, and that follows you for years on the internet, looking for dates, looking for work, apartments, people at church, your kids friends, etc.

Maybe we could discuss not only what constitutes libel and the burden of proof, but also where we draw the line on private vs public speech. You can say anything to your family and friends in your house, but maybe you shouldn't be allowed to post lies to the global internet. Maybe those are the rules while talking about a normal person who doesn't have a national or global internet presence, but the rules are different talking about a large company who does. Maybe publications are held to higher standards than individuals - they can play by the rules or don't play. Maybe something like dcma take-down notices for libel, so nobody is surprised with a lawsuit. These are just some ideas, more brainstorming.

Admittedly I don't know the judicial history behind lies being defended as free speech in the U.S., but it seems to me there are some interesting things to think about here.

[stjohnswarts]

This can't happen. An option like that would conflict directly with freedom of speech and freedom of the press. As much as I hate what happens to people like her, there are far more cases like Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin that need to be put under the spotlight. Don't get me wrong, I hate what happens to people like here that get caught in the crosshairs. This director and company making the movie should be ashamed of themselves for either not dissociating themselves from her story or at the very least working with her and reaching some understanding where they have respect for her story. A lot of people know she was innocent but I would say the majority don't and only followed the story in the beginning.

[Frost1x]

We probably just need to fix loopholes in slander and libel laws and give common people more power to enforce them without making it a huge financial risk. People realized many many years ago how people's names come be abused and drug through the mud and created a recourse for it.

Changing someone's name just a bit or creating fictional characters you can copyright that everyone knows is a substitution or can find the substitution if they're interested in linking the fictional depiction to the real depiction is just a loophole around slander and libel, which the author points out with Damien Matthews or whatever in the example. Completely legal and now you have artistic freedom to reshape the story however you want. The person with the most resources to fight legally typically wind here.

Throwing some disclaimer line in like "this is no based on actual people or events" or whatever seems to give far too much of a liability waiver. It's really just plain wrong and the author makes a great point about naming an event and agency. Branding is very powerful and can create subconscious links that otherwise shouldn't exist. Naming is a bit tricky though because you often pick an easy memorable name to associate with something. Naming sort of act like a hash map with collision handling in my brain.

When I see Bill Clinton's name or "Clinton" a whole slew of thoughts and memories link to that name or phrase and it can be difficult to determine what someone says. When you say Monica Lewenski's name on the other hand, she acts as a memorable unique identifier to the event, unfairly to her. I know exactly what you're talking about and I know about Bill, power differentials at play, and so on but the name needs to be unique and memorable in language. As the author points out, this naming convenience comes at a cost to those who might get improper associations for responsibility, so it's complicated. I think we should strive for branding that leaves out names where possible. Watergate seems like a great branding job, I immediately know it's Nixon and it doesn't dissolve him of any responsibility. Should the facts change and I read about Watergate later, say it was Deepthroat actually responsible somehow, the name Watergate name still exists and associations of responsibility in the future can change. Abstract your branding to avoid finger pointing.

[mikem170]

The libel and slander laws in the U.K. different than in the U.S. [0]:

> "English laws are much more favorable for someone looking to protect their reputation," says Jenny Afia, a lawyer in London who often represents people making libel and privacy claims.

> In American courts, the burden of proof rests with the person who brings a claim of libel. In British courts, the author or journalist has the burden of proof, and typically loses.

> "So you've got the rich and powerful shutting down and chilling speech which is critical of them," says Stephens.

[0] https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/...

[jimhefferon]

Non-sarcastic question: suppose I trademark my name and then someone with my name opens an account on a web site, or a resturant, or writes a script. Are they in violation? (It is strange to me that, say, Twitter is a worldwide namespace. We had a resturant in our East Coast US town that had to change its totally-boring name because they were threatened by a West Coast resturant with that name.)

[kube-system]

Trademarks are narrow in scope to a particular line of business. If you trademark a restaurant named "Jim's", that means other people cannot open other restaurants named "Jim's", but they could open any other kind of business under the same name.

[kortilla]

It’s even stricter than that. Getting a trademark on something as simple as “Jim’s” for a restaurant is near impossible because there are already thousands of restaurants and bars that use that name.

[kube-system]

We're saying the same thing. Just swap "you" and "other people" in my comment. The law works the same for everyone.

[kortilla]

No, we’re not. I’m pointing out that you can’t even trademark common names even in the scope of a narrow business. You wouldn’t be able to trademark “Jim’s restaurant” at all.

[madaxe_again]

No. See:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_persons_fictitious_discl...

[dooglius]

I didn't get the impression the film used her name