American Apparel Fights Dirty in Lawsuit with Woody Allen
Filed under: Celebrities and Controversy, Newsstand

Just when you thought American Apparel couldn't get any sleazier, founder Dov Charney and his legal team have managed to set a new low. You might remember that back in 2007, the hipster clothing outlet put up a billboard featuring an image of Woody Allen in full Hasidic gear from his 1977 film Annie Hall. Remember that brilliant piece of marketing? Well, turns out nobody bothered to ask the man, and before you knew it, he was on the horn with his lawyers to launch a $10 million lawsuit against the company for the unauthorized usage of his image -- Allen even went so far as to call the brand, "sleazy", "adolescent" and "infantile". But it looks like things are going to get even uglier, because legal representation for American Apparel have announced that on May 18th in a Manhattan district court, they will rake over every salacious detail of Allen's personal life in an attempt to prove that Allen's image isn't worth much to begin with.
According to AA's lawyer, "I think Woody Allen overestimates the value of his image. Certainly, our belief is that after the various sex scandals that Woody Allen has been associated with, corporate America's desire to have Woody Allen endorse their product is not what he may believe it is." Now I might be a little biased on this one because I am a big fan of Mr. Allen's work, but dragging up old accusations of child molestation and details from his messy divorce seems shady even by Charney's standards. AA's lawyers have already requested documentation regarding 'sex scandals' and custody hearings (which Allen has refused to provide), and if Charney and his lawyer get their way, they will have turned a simple case of copyright infringement into a full-blown personal attack.
Do you think AA has a point? Is Allen's personal life fair game? Or is this just an attempt to avoid a $10 million payout by embarrassing the man? Sound off below...










Reader Comments (Page 2 of 2)
4-16-2009 @ 1:06PM
Marige said...
They are simply trying to side-step the issue.
The point is not the value of Mr. Allen's image. The point is their validity to use it without his permission.
Most people do not know that ANYONE must grant access to an advertiser in order to use their image. Even the average person on the street. They MUST sign a waiver -- for it to be used. If they refuse, the image cannot be used. End of story.
The same rights apply to the famous, the infamous -- anyone. Not doing so is a clear breach of Mr. Allen's constitutional rights.
The judge that even acknowledges such nonsense as Mr. Allen's past, as grounds for the amount of the suit (which is not based on his value as a commodity, by the way) is either being bribed or doesn't deserve to sit on a bench.
Reply
4-16-2009 @ 2:29PM
pAT said...
Since when do you have to prove that your likeness has value in order to prevent someone from using it without your permission? If that flies, every non-celebrity on earth is fair game for whatever advertisers choose.
I wish Mr. Allen a successful counter-suit and American Apparel a kick in the ass.
Reply
5-07-2009 @ 11:41AM
Burnelvis said...
Pure marketing genius!
Reply