White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. [1993]

989 F.2d 1512 (9th Cir. 1993) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · United States

Property Law (Real Property)property-lawProperty Law (Real Property)Right of publicity; Property right in identity

Issue

Whether a celebrity has a property right in her identity that can be violated by imitation without consent.

Held

Yes; the imitation violated White's right of publicity under California common law.

Exam use

In an exam, introduce White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. with the citation only if you can remember it accurately; otherwise use the case name and court, then focus on the rule and application. A strong answer should say what White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. decided, why the facts mattered, and how the authority helps resolve the new facts. Avoid treating the case as a decorative reference. Use it to prove a doctrinal step in Right of publicity; Property right in identity, then move quickly to analysis.

Summary

White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. is included in the Property Law (Real Property) case database because it gives students a concrete authority for Right of publicity; Property right in identity. The reported citation is 989 F.2d 1512 (9th Cir. 1993), and the decision is associated with United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In revision, treat the case as a way to connect the legal issue to a real dispute rather than as an abstract rule. The key exam move is to state the holding, identify the fact pattern that made the rule matter, and then decide whether a new problem question should apply, distinguish, or limit the authority.

Facts

The material factual signal for White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. is: Samsung used a robot resembling Vanna White in an advertisement without her consent. Students should read the linked source and turn that signal into a short fact table: parties, transaction or public-law setting, procedural posture, conduct in dispute, and the fact the court treated as decisive. This prevents vague case-dropping. In an answer on Property Law (Real Property), use the facts to explain why Right of publicity; Property right in identity was live, then compare the problem facts against the facts in the case before stating any conclusion.

Procedural History

White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. is reported as a decision of United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The procedural route should be checked against the linked source before formal citation. For study notes, record whether the decision was an appeal, judicial review, trial judgment, tribunal ruling, or constitutional/application proceeding, because that posture affects how confidently the rule can be used.

Issue

Whether a celebrity has a property right in her identity that can be violated by imitation without consent.

Held

Yes; the imitation violated White's right of publicity under California common law.

Ratio Decidendi

The right of publicity is a property right that protects against unauthorized commercial use of a person's likeness or identity.

Obiter Dicta

Check the linked source for concurring, dissenting, or obiter observations before quoting this case. If the case includes non-binding reasoning, use it as persuasive support rather than as the core rule.

Reasoning

For reasoning, start with the ratio: The right of publicity is a property right that protects against unauthorized commercial use of a person's likeness or identity. Then read the source and separate three things: the legal test, the facts used to apply that test, and any policy or institutional reason the court gave. This structure makes White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. easier to use in essays and problem questions. In Property Law (Real Property), the case should be compared with related authorities on Right of publicity; Property right in identity; if the jurisdiction, statute, or procedural posture differs from the exam problem, explain that limit explicitly instead of treating the authority as automatic.

Plain-English Explanation

Plainly, White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. is a case to use when a Property Law (Real Property) answer needs an authority on Right of publicity; Property right in identity. Do not just list it. Explain the problem the court had to solve, the rule or holding it used, and the fact that made the result persuasive. That turns the case from a memorised name into evidence for your legal analysis.

Essay-Ready Explanation Generator

Version 1 of 4

Reference to White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (989 F.2d 1512 (9th Cir. 1993)) strengthens a Property Law (Real Property) answer because the case reflects the principle that The right of publicity is a property right that protects against unauthorized commercial use of a person's likeness or identity. Applied to a problem question, the case should be used after identifying the issue as Whether a celebrity has a property right in her identity that can be violated by imitation without consent. The stronger essay move is to connect the material facts to the court's holding, then explain whether the present facts support the same conclusion or justify distinguishing the authority.

Underlying Concepts

  • property-law
  • Property Law (Real Property)
  • Right of publicity; Property right in identity
  • case authority
  • exam application

Key Passages

  • Verify exact wording in the linked source before quoting.

Significance

White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. is significant for LawConquer users because it supplies a named authority for Right of publicity; Property right in identity in Property Law (Real Property). The case can anchor a paragraph, support a rule statement, or provide a contrast point when another authority points the other way. Its practical value is strongest when the student links the holding to the material facts and then explains whether the present problem is analogous or distinguishable.

Related Cases

No related cases listed.

Exam Tips

In an exam, introduce White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. with the citation only if you can remember it accurately; otherwise use the case name and court, then focus on the rule and application. A strong answer should say what White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. decided, why the facts mattered, and how the authority helps resolve the new facts. Avoid treating the case as a decorative reference. Use it to prove a doctrinal step in Right of publicity; Property right in identity, then move quickly to analysis.

Revision Checklist

  • Name the issue before discussing facts so the marker sees the legal question immediately.
  • State the holding in one sentence, then use the ratio to explain why the court reached that result.
  • Use the citation and jurisdiction to show why this authority matters for the problem you are answering.
  • Pair this case with one supporting or contrasting authority if the question tests limits, policy, or exceptions.

Problem Question Use

Use White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in a problem question by matching the factual trigger to the new scenario. If the fact pattern aligns with Samsung used a robot resembling Vanna White in an advertisement without her consent., apply the ratio and explain the likely result. If a crucial fact, jurisdiction, statute, or procedural posture differs, distinguish the case and use it as a boundary rather than a controlling answer.

Common Pitfalls

  • Name-dropping the case without applying the facts
  • Ignoring jurisdiction or procedural posture
  • Quoting without checking the linked source

Sources