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 1 of 2)
4-15-2009 @ 9:16PM
cubitfox said...
Who cares about his personal life? I'm fairly sure the law isn't based around the victim's personal life. Why would Woody Allen having "sex scandals" mean that his rights can be infringed upon? Just because MJ had "sex scandals" doesn't mean you can steal money from him. I mean, they sound like immature fourth graders who instead of actually facing reality, just sling insults around.
Plus, their argument is just plain stupid. It's like infringing on a patent of an idea, and then saying "well the idea wasn't that good, anyways."
Reply
4-15-2009 @ 9:30PM
Reuben said...
I was thinking the same thing. Just because Woody Allen may have had a sordid past does not mean that his image is not protected under law. AA can present all the "evidence" they want, but that certainly wont change the protection that Allen is entitled to.
4-16-2009 @ 1:36PM
Woody Tanaka said...
AA's argument is about damages, not liablity. In other words, they might be guilty, but they're not $10 million worth of guilty.
4-15-2009 @ 10:13PM
alipali said...
AA's lawyers: "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."
So why use his image to market your company if you find him so morally reprehensible and/or worthless?
Or is that lawyer-backpedalling bull? Thought so.
I love that they've taken umbrage at the fact that Woody believes his image has some value. The front of the man!
By today's standards $10 mil seems rather pedestrian.
Reply
4-15-2009 @ 10:11PM
Kate said...
Bill Hicks had a routine about the officers in the Rodney King case showing off their colossal balls during the trial by saying how you viewed the video depended on your perspective. Was it a smart thing to say? Nooo. Was it stupid thing to say? Yeees. Did it require balls so big you needed a wheelbarrow to cart 'em in as according to Hicks? Yeees. Methinks we can apply that same logic here.
AA is going to get its ass handed to it and all they'll get out of it is if they want fresh pepper on their ass.
Reply
4-15-2009 @ 10:33PM
fritzcars said...
Clearly there is no integrity in bringing up these matters and it rather validates Allen's commentary on the original incident. That is to say that they've not only proven that they're being "sleazy", "adolescent" and "infantile" by this response, but also, as you've so rightly pointed out, contradicted themselves. Furthermore I believe you hit the nail on the head by saying that's a modest amount of money by today's standards. This may be a matter of principle but since they chose to go the dirty route if I were Allen I'd change it to 100 million at least.
Reply
5-07-2009 @ 10:53AM
Heidi Nagy said...
Your comments are of the most logical and of intelligence. Whatever Woody Allens past it has nothing to do with the fact that his legal rights were violated.
I had worked in Montreal with Mr. Dov Charney, when he began American Apparel at the age of 19. I had respected him at the time for being so ambitious but he was not someone that I could have trusted. He would have made more money in teaming up with the well respected, very talented Mr. Woody Allen, instead of losing (which he will lose in court) and further damage his reputation down the line. Respect is what it is all about. Dov Charney, once again, thought that he is above all.
4-16-2009 @ 12:21AM
Morgan Stanley said...
I am confused...why are you calling an American Company, that is an Industrial revolution with 10,000 employees providing great health benefits with great values sleezy?
Morgan
Reply
4-16-2009 @ 3:53AM
Nick said...
Probably has something do with all the sexual assault claims employees have filed against the CEO, and the fact that their advertising consists of skinny women barely wearing their hipster stretcthy pants clothes.
That said, I'm currently wearing one of their t-shirts which I've had for years and has held up incredibly well. They make good quality stuff, but most of it IS infantile hipter garbage.
Also, they're ruining Helvetica for the world.
4-16-2009 @ 6:58AM
Morgan Stanley said...
If I understand correctly, Nike and The Gap can abuse children who work in there Asian factories and make shitty clothes, American Apparel makes outstanding quality clothing and has 10,000 employees here in America.
You say they have skinny models? Isn't it true that the people in the pictures are just regular people? Open Vouge and look at the advertising....hello duh? Go to Europe and watch TV ads...hello duh?
Morgan Stanley
4-17-2009 @ 4:36PM
Nick said...
As a tip, arguments are never made stronger by ending them with "hello duh?"
What I was saying about the models is they're these girls, usually employees, who he strips half naked and it seems like an abuse of power, and a bit exploitative. Not to mention that the ads are directly selling the clothes with sex.
4-23-2009 @ 11:07PM
John said...
Because it was sleazy of them to use his image without asking (and if they had asked they would not have liked the price so they just stole it anyway), and it's sleazy of them to basically admit guilt but suggest that Woody has no reputation worth $10 million. So, they decide to harrass and harm him further.
Please note that Woody is asking for "at least $10 million" and because this is a tort and punitive damages can apply, it's up to a jury (and then an appeals court) to determine how much they will have to pay.
But -- imagine the stockholders... shouldn't they be asking whether management should be held personally liable for this behavior? After all, Dov & Co. are spending their money in a very foolish way.
4-16-2009 @ 2:30AM
Joyce Kaplan said...
I sent a comment to their advertising department.
Woody Allen is a celebrity, a genius and may be an unconventional genius.
I also asked why they used his image, in the first place, if it was not desireable nor of any importance.
His personal behavior has nothing to do with the value of the attention to the advertisement.
They made a foolish error to think they can win with personal history. If they wanted a celebrity in the ad, they should have obtained permission, in advance and under a contract.
They shouldn't get away with this.
They should try to make a deal, and shut up!
Reply
4-16-2009 @ 6:41AM
NancyB said...
Maybe I'm just cynical but this seems like a lot of free press for AA just when their marketing strategy was getting a bit stale.
Reply
4-16-2009 @ 8:36AM
GL said...
I see their point.
Reply
4-16-2009 @ 9:29AM
Nick 2 said...
Morgan Stanley works for American Apparel. Their job is to search Google all day for 'American Apparel' and when they finds someone saying bad things about American Apparel, disagree with them. They are good at their job.
Reply
4-16-2009 @ 10:06AM
lainix said...
They are proving Woody's point.
1. if his image isn't worth the millions of dollars worth of recognition, why did they use him?
2. if he is so sleazy why would they use his image?
3. I'd would guess about 90% of america would recognize his face, past indiscretions or not. thats what you ar epaying for.
they messed up and liek a kid who got busted they are trying to change the subject and make someone else look worse. i hope he increases the amount due to them muddling his name. isn't that defimation of character or something?
Reply
4-16-2009 @ 10:25AM
lockbox said...
It sounds like AA is basically conceding that they infringed on his image, and are just positioning themselves to negotiate damages. Essentially, take a low-ball offer, or we're going to publicly embarrass you.
Reply
4-23-2009 @ 11:08PM
John said...
Yes, that's it in a nutshell. But it has the high liklihood of backfiring big time and may cost the company more than it thinks.
4-16-2009 @ 10:32AM
Pingles said...
Their argument is flawed as described in several comments above but I have not seen a Woody Allen film since he married his step-daughter.
As someone who has dated a woman with kids I can tell you that those kids very quickly see you as a father-figure and convincing yourself that it's okay to start sleeping with them is a sign of a very big problem.
He gives me the heebie-jeebies.
Reply