Surname 1

Student’s Name

Professor’s Name

Course Title

Date

White V, Samsung

The Facts of the Case

In 1988, the famous electronic company, Samsung Electronic America, Inc. were doing

different types of advertisements to enhance their profit. Amongst their famous advertisement

was for the video cassette recorders, but they violated the right of privacy and property

ownership in this advertisement. The company used the image and the name of Vanna White in

form of a robot posed next to a game board, famously known as wheel of fortune, which is

Vanna Whites, eminent stance. However, the Samsung Company did this without White’s

permission, forcing her to sue the company. Besides, to make the case more worse and open, the

Company captioned the advertisement as “Vanna White Ms.”

The issue at the law the court is considering

The major issue in this case will concern the invasion of person’s privacy or fame rights.

Therefore, the question to the court is; is the assumption of an individual’s fame, name and

image without their consent a violation of the right of privacy?

How the law was applied in this case

Since the early 1950s, the American law has known the intellectual property right in an

individual’s publicity. This implies that every American has a right to profit and control from
 Surname 2

their communal ideals, which they have personally created. In this case, the court applied the

California Civil Code Section 3344, which states that “Any person who knowingly uses another

person’s name, signature, voice, likeness, or photograph, in any manner, or in products,

merchandise, or goods, or for purpose of advertising without permission is illegal” (White v.

Samsung Elecs). This is because the nation wanted people to improve creativity and foster

innovation. Therefore, in the court, this code section implied that the defendant’s action violated

the common law privilege of publicity.

Conclusion of the court

The court found the defendant liable because the company violated the California Civil

Code Section 3344. First, the defendant used another person’s identity for economic reasons.

Next, the defendant lacked Plaintiff’s permission. Therefore, the court left behind the stern law

policies of adoption because the viewers of the advertisement could clearly see it was an attempt

to use another person’s creativity.

 Surname 3

Work Cited

White v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., 989 F.2d 1512, 26 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1362, 93 Cal. Daily

Op. Service 1933, 93 Daily Journal DAR 3477, 21 Media L. Rep. 1330 (9th Cir. Mar. 18,

1993)