Heading: White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 971 F2d 1395 (1993) handout p 28.
Facts: A robot dressed to resemble Vanna White was used in a commercial for electronics. Vanna did not give permission and was not paid for the ad. The robot appeared on a set resembling Jeopardy.
Procedure: White sued alleging infringement of various intellectual property rights. Court granted summary judgement in favor of D. This court affirms in part, reverses in part, and remand.
Issue: Does the use of a robot dressed to remind viewers of Jeopardy’s Vanna White, in a television commercial, constitute a theft of her image for the monetary gain of the company (at the expense of White)? Should Vanna be paid damages for the use of her image in the commercial? Was White’s identity exploited?
Rule: ??
Holding: White has pleaded claims which can go to the jury for its decision.
Rationale: There is enough evidence to show that White’s identity was used. A jury should decide the outcome. A celebrity has sole right to exploit identity value. Was White’s identity exploited without her permission?
Policy/Notes:
REHEARING DECISION
Heading: White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 989 F2d 1512 (1993) handout p 30.
Facts: A robot dressed to resemble Vanna White was used in a commercial for electronics. Vanna did not give permission and was not paid for the ad. The robot appeared on a set resembling Jeopardy.
Procedure: White sued alleging infringement of various intellectual property rights. Court granted summary judgement in favor of D. In 1992 this court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. In 1993 a the same court rejected a rehearing.
Issue: Was White’s image exploited causing a violation of the laws that give the celebrity the sole right to market their image?
Rule: Reducing too much private property is bad medicine.
Holding: No. It is just an example of creativity on the part of the advertisers.
Rationale: Reducing too much to private property can be dangerous. Overprotecting intellectual property is as harmful as under-protecting it. Because the ad did not use her name, likeness or voice it did not violate her right of privacy. First Amendment issues: if we say that nothing can be used that might remind viewers of something, then cases like White’s will in effect be used to control thoughts.
Policy/Notes: