Woody Allen and American Apparel in Legal Fisticuffs; Pop Culture Writer Utterly Confused

About a year ago, Woody Allen sued American Apparel for using his image on their billboards without his permission. Things have since gone downhill.

AA, which is headed by psychotic sleazeball of the highest order, Dov Charney, is fighting the $10 million lawsuit, claiming that there's no way that their unauthorized use of Allen's image to falsely endorse their product could damage his reputation because he has already irreparably damaged his reputation on his own.

AA's lawyer, Stuart Slotnick, stated that they intend to drag all aspects of Allen's life into the trial, particularly his relationship with Soon-Yi Previn. In case you slept through the 1990s, Previn is the adopted daughter of Mia Farrow, who was in a long-term relationship with Allen when he and Previn began having an affair. Which, you know, ew. But it was over 10 years ago and despite their somewhat incestuous beginning, the two are adults in a committed marriage.

Besides all of that, what does Allen's filial taste in women have to do with deep-V neck tees? And how does it justify illegally using his image? And what the fuck does that billboard even mean?

I'm just really having a hard time understanding AA's argument against the lawsuit and their statement with the billboard. Is it a reaction to the constant scandals that Charney is involved in? Some middle finger to a society that condemns his actions while still celebrating the also-skeevy Allen and his work? If so, I have a newsflash for Charney and Slotnick: regurgitating horrendous 80s clothing and then marketing to dumb hipsters with your blaze cocaine chic and no-sweatshop appeal does not equal even five minutes of Annie Hall. So step the fuck off. American Apparel is the Thalidomide of our generation!

Comments

[makyo]

yeah, i heard this story and was confused as well. it's still illegal to use celebrities' images/endorsements without their permission, correct? i would assume this applies regardless of their personal or professional indiscretions. honestly it's probably just american apparel seizing an opportunity to get their name in the papers. some of their other advertising - particularly skeevy pics of scantily-clad girls who may or may not be of legal age - leads me to believe they're a little iffy in the morals department.

[Natalie]

I think they are just making an argument (albeit a 10th grade LD debater argument)that if what he is POed about is that it hurts his image, hey no harm no foul cause his image all ready blows (probably will not hold up in court of course)

also as an aside, it bugs me that because he (woody) is talented we over look "the skeevy" cause it apparently makes it okay? Sorry but at the time the relationship started they were not both consenting adults, but its like okay cause he put diane keaton in men's ties and made her act neurotic

not so much for me

[kdiddy]

but even if that argument were to hold up in court or society, you still can't just use someone's image to sell a product without their permission.

allen's talent doesn't make what he did okay. but it's important to appreciate the art apart from the artist. there are lots of very talented people who make invaluable contributions to culture who I would not sit at the same table with. I have no desire to hang out with Allen and his non-movie-related expressions have always struck me as assholeish and insane. nonetheless, much of his work is brilliant and can't be denied.

[kdiddy]

"leads me to believe they're a little iffy in the morals department."

heh. yeah. It's amazing that they have money to throw away on crap like this and are willing to waste taxpayer money on such a "statement" when people in this country can't afford to eat. somehow that seems to negate their supposedly socially responsible business ethic.

[BaltimoreGal]

The advertising from American Apparel is already some of the most disgusting and exploitative out there- I hate everything about that company including the clothing.

[jodifur]

The argument is this:

Woody Allen is suing b/c he is saying being associated with this company is bad for his reputation. The defense is your reputation is already bad and here is way.

It is a separate action from the copyright/trademark infringement action. It's like the idea that truth is a defense to defamation.

Make sense?