From shortly after I started domaining I've been of the mind that acquiring anyone's full name is wrong (unless deceased or a political figure).
Beyond that there's also this for Americans or those who use an American based registrar:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2012-title15/html/USCODE-2012-title15-chap107-subchapII.htm
SUBCHAPTER II—CYBERSQUATTING PROTECTION
§8131. Cyberpiracy protections for individuals
(1) In general - (A) Civil liability
My advice to all ..
stay away from full names. Whether it's legal or not is really besides the point .. as ethically you're targeting a domain because someone has that name. It's effectively what gives the domain industry a bad reputation. People come up with all sorts of creative arguments about how to justify holding such domains, but in the end it's cybersquatting 99%+ of the time unless it's also your actual full name.
That being said .. if it's a dead person .. even a famous one .. then I personally couldn't care less because that person can no longer make money (yes the argument can be made that the person's estate is still a legal entity .. but the actual person is dead, so at least morally I don't have issues .. although there still could be legal ones technically)
When it comes to politicians it gets a bit trickier .. because the site could be acquired by an end user who does not intent to profit financially from the domain (political criticism). So for politicians it is a bit more complex, and I'm not as morally opposed (as long as you aren't fraudulently making money pretending to be or represent the person .. which includes advertising/affiliate income and most forms of monetisation).
Definitely do NOT monetise any full name that is not your own, or of anyone with whom you do not have a legal contract that permits you to do so.
That being said .. I think first names (
alone) and last names (
alone) are
great investments and totally generic enough to justify holding as potential generic brands (as long as the name isn't extremely unique)..