White Vs Samsung Case Summary
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
White V. Samsung Electronics & David Deutsch Associates is a case where the plaintiff Ms. Vanna White is suing the defendants for use of her image in their television advertisements without any form of consent from her. Vanna White is the well known hostess of Wheel of Fortune, a popular television show. Deutsch & Samsung teamed up to run an advertisement campaign for Samsung to edify Samsung’s brand image. During one of their advertisements appeared a robot wearing the traditional outfit Vanna White wore on “Wheel of Fortune,” beside a set which resembled the popular “Wheel of Fortune” television show which she hosted. Further, White markets her identity to various advertisers. White’s initial case is ruled against …show more content…
RULE:
Ms. Vanna White cites (3) separate Case Law in her case against Samsung & David Deutsch Associates. The first of which is California Civil Code Section 3344(a) which text states that "[a]ny person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, ... for purposes of advertising or selling, ... without such person's prior consent ... shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof.” It is important to note that when interpreted in court, this law has limitations regarding what constitutes the use of a likeness.
Next, Ms. White cites the California common law right of publicity which "may be pleaded by alleging (1) the defendant's use of the plaintiff's identity; (2) the appropriation of plaintiff's name or likeness to defendant's advantage, commercially or otherwise; (3) lack of consent; and (4) resulting injury." Id. at 417, 198 Cal.Rptr. 342 (citing Prosser, Law of Torts (4th ed. 1971) § 117, pp. 804-807). This law may be interpreted as having wider scope than California Civil Code section …show more content…
But if this is the principle which we hold to, then when can companies ever parody each other for financial benefit, and why isn’t there a Microsoft V. Apple computers suit or Coke V. Pepsi for each other’s competitive parody of the competitors products. It is because these companies are reasonable enough to recognize that this is the underpinning of market capitalism, the ability to develop a brand as long as you aren’t harming another. Simply put, parody is free speech as long as Ms. White wasn’t harmed in the
White V. Samsung Electronics & David Deutsch Associates is a case where the plaintiff Ms. Vanna White is suing the defendants for use of her image in their television advertisements without any form of consent from her. Vanna White is the well known hostess of Wheel of Fortune, a popular television show. Deutsch & Samsung teamed up to run an advertisement campaign for Samsung to edify Samsung’s brand image. During one of their advertisements appeared a robot wearing the traditional outfit Vanna White wore on “Wheel of Fortune,” beside a set which resembled the popular “Wheel of Fortune” television show which she hosted. Further, White markets her identity to various advertisers. White’s initial case is ruled against …show more content…
RULE:
Ms. Vanna White cites (3) separate Case Law in her case against Samsung & David Deutsch Associates. The first of which is California Civil Code Section 3344(a) which text states that "[a]ny person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, ... for purposes of advertising or selling, ... without such person's prior consent ... shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof.” It is important to note that when interpreted in court, this law has limitations regarding what constitutes the use of a likeness.
Next, Ms. White cites the California common law right of publicity which "may be pleaded by alleging (1) the defendant's use of the plaintiff's identity; (2) the appropriation of plaintiff's name or likeness to defendant's advantage, commercially or otherwise; (3) lack of consent; and (4) resulting injury." Id. at 417, 198 Cal.Rptr. 342 (citing Prosser, Law of Torts (4th ed. 1971) § 117, pp. 804-807). This law may be interpreted as having wider scope than California Civil Code section …show more content…
But if this is the principle which we hold to, then when can companies ever parody each other for financial benefit, and why isn’t there a Microsoft V. Apple computers suit or Coke V. Pepsi for each other’s competitive parody of the competitors products. It is because these companies are reasonable enough to recognize that this is the underpinning of market capitalism, the ability to develop a brand as long as you aren’t harming another. Simply put, parody is free speech as long as Ms. White wasn’t harmed in the