• then_three_more@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    159
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    He says his son was eventually issued the passport and the family’s vacation is still on.

    Sounds to me like someone so the passport office was just being an idiot and when their supervisor looked into it it was resolved.

  • jpreston2005@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Private corporations tying the hands of governments with copyright BS? If I want to name my daughter Khaleesi Skywalker Gandalf Bethooven SpaceJam that’s none of the governments nor some random corporations business. You can’t trademark a fucking name, wtf is this bullshit? You don’t get to decide what my name is, and you definitely don’t get to hamstring official government agencies in their duties because you’re butthurt about my sharing a name with your fictional character. Go fuck yourselves, disney. You slimy litigious fucks, this is why your brand is sinking.

    • yesman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      2 months ago

      This isn’t a rule. Some bureaucrat was mistaken.

      The same thing happened to another girl a couple weeks ago.

        • WldFyre@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          2 months ago

          The French do their arguably dumber “you can’t call that thing you made what I call it even though it’s the same recipe, because it wasn’t grown where my ancient relatives made it,” though. Also France’s general xenophobia and owning a bona fide colony way later than the Anglos lol

          • Something Burger 🍔@jlai.lu
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            You’re talking about AOP (Appelation d’Origine Protégée / Protected Origin Naming). It makes senses because protected names are place names. You can’t call any sparkling wine “champagne”. It has to come from Champagne. However, you can call your raw milk cheese “faisselle” even if it wasn’t made in Rians, as faisselle isn’t a place.

            • MartianSands@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              2 months ago

              By that logic, you should object to cheese being labelled as “cheddar” cheese, because that’s a place too and you’ve almost certainly never seen cheese which came from there.

              It’s a stupid rule

              • Squizzy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                2 months ago

                I wouldnt see it as stupid, people and governments want to protect what they produce.

                If it doesnt matter then have prosecco and everyone is happy.

    • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yeah, Disney is slimy, but for once this isn’t their doing. Some paper pusher overstepped their boundaries, that’s not on Disney.

    • Squizzy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      There are rules around names for children with food reason, if you name your child Hitler and Unwanted you can expect government intervention because it can be perceived as child abuse by putting undue stress and difficulty on the child.

      Which I believe is fair

      This name doesnt quite hit that mark but I would defend government intervention when naming children for outlier cases.

      • viking@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        All fair and good, but that kid has been named without government interference, so the name is legally given. So they shouldn’t be able to then deny an identification document later.

      • Zahille7@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        2 months ago

        True and fair, but what do you think when you hear that someone’s name is Loki (who isn’t from a Scandinavian country)?

      • FinishingDutch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        And Jedi is actually recognised as an official religion in the US. And there’s plenty of people who identify as Jedi in the UK as well. So one could certainly argue that it’s violating someone’s religious beliefs by not allowing that name. At least Luke Skywalker has some evidence of existing…

        • Kbobabob@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          At least Luke Skywalker has some evidence of existing…

          Both are book fairy tales that had movie adaptations. They are more similar.

      • Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’m an atheist and even I know that’s a weird comparison. You can’t copyright the name Jesus. Or Loki even cause they’re deities. But Skywalker as a name is for sure made up by Lucas. Maybe in 500 years when star wars is a recognized religion, but the star wars people need to do some conquering and crimes against humanity to qualify for that

        • stoly@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          My comment is not about them using copyrighted names. It’s about how silly people are who name children over fictional characters.

  • General_Effort@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    2 months ago

    Something as short as “Skywalker” can’t be copyrighted. You don’t need permission to use a trademark as long as you don’t harm the brand or confuse the customer. Since trademarks are often family names, there are a number of unrelated companies that operate under the same name but in a different business.

    • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      2 months ago

      Sure, but, also, that it’s an existing brand is simply irrelevant to a personal name. You don’t need to establish that it doesn’t damage the brand, it can even directly damage the brand in fact, it still doesn’t matter because people aren’t products.

  • BoxOfFeet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 months ago

    Man, that’s a stupid name. Poor kid permanently tied to a pop culture reference. Two, if the Loki is referring to Marvel. Naming a kid is not an opportunity to express yourself. If you want people to know you like star wars, get a tattoo. Or a bumper sticker. And then I’ll judge you. But leave the kid out of it.

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      If you can find a time machine, the braydens, jaydens, aydens, aidens, alicias, felicias, aleeshas, leEverythings, and every intentionally-misspelled version of a normal name, will be spared a lifetime of “it’s like this but spelled like that because my mom sniffed glue” discussions.

      • Fredselfish@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        That part really gets me. Why the fuck would you name your kid a name you can’t fucking spell. And before paperwork is submitted there should be a law that steps in and stops the naming.

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s probably a reference to Marvel. In the Germanic tradition you a) don’t name kids directly after gods, though gods may make up part of the name, say Thorgeir, Thor’s spear, and b) not after Loki. Between fucking a horse (and getting pregnant) and tying a goat to his balls he really should be off limits.

      • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Between fucking a horse (and getting pregnant) and tying a goat to his balls he really should be off limits.

        So much for the tolerant left!!!

  • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    It is incredibly stupid that the Passport office thinks that this is a copyright issue, but the parents logic is also baffling…

    “We understand that Loki’s middle name is copyrighted, but we have no intention of using it for personal gain."

    So you gave a child a name that they themselves won’t be able to use for “personal gain” when they grow up? Acknowledging the inherent limitations of a name like this just sounds like you willfully set your kid up for failure.

    Sounds to me like a case of parents treating their child like an accessory. You’re not raising a child, you’re raising a future adult. Maybe don’t give them a legal name that is also a corporate brand name?

    • Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      My son happens to have the name of one of my favorite comic book characters. However, it’s only one of his names, and also it’s a name that’s real and normal so nobody would think twice about it. I wouldn’t name him such an obvious name that is only tired to the one character

    • BruceTwarzen@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      I have a somewhat unusual name, that could me male or female. I really didn’t like it growing up. Now i don’t care anymore, moat people call me a wrong name anyway that sounds similar. But damn, growing up i just wanted a normal ass name.

      • otp@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        growing up i just wanted a normal ass name.

        Now, as an adult, you can name your ass whatever you want!

    • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      He was later permitted. The delay being one bureacrat somewhere was being a corporate bootlicker, possibly based on some bootlicking regulation but maybe just a blanket misinterpretation of a law.

  • rumschlumpel@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    2 months ago

    He [the father] says his son was eventually issued the passport and the family’s vacation is still on.

    Sounds like that office doesn’t know how their own rules work.

  • wjrii@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    I think this is the second time this has happened in recent months. I am wondering if the UK bureaucracy has some sort of training about not violating trademarks generally, or some sort of software filter to avoid trademarked terms. Regardless, it seems like a fairly petty annoyance that affects a tiny number of people and can be worked around.

    Or hell, maybe it’s the same clerk and Gareth from Slough is sticking to his guns.

  • gnomesaiyan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    Why would you do that to your child? I mean, you wanna change your own name, go for it.

  • x4740N@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 months ago

    This is stupid

    So if they name a movie character Jane Doe then are they going to stop Jane Doe from getting a passport

    • nogooduser@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      It is stupid, yes, but they wouldn’t be able to do that anyway.

      I’m fairly certain that the article is using the wrong term here and the problem is that the name Skywalker is trademarked.

      You wouldn’t be able to trademark the name Jane Doe so you wouldn’t be able to prevent someone from using it.

      • homesnatch@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        A trademark does not prevent a person from using a term in a non-commercial setting, it does prevent other companies from doing so.

        • x4740N@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Is this US law, I’m assuming it is because its typically americans that mention legal stuff without saying what country the legal stuff is from

    • RamblingPanda@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 months ago

      And Loki is a Nordic god, so nothing to worry about (except if those gods get angry, then good night). The name Skywalker might be the bigger issue here. But even then, no copyright infringement, except if they try to sell their son I guess.