Woody Allen Sues Company Over Rabbi Billboard

Woody Allen asked a federal court on Monday to strip a clothing company known for its racy ads featuring scantily clad models of at least $10 million for using his image on billboards and on the Internet.

In a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, the actor-director said he does not endorse commercial products or services in the United States, which makes the May 2007 American Apparel billboards in Hollywood and New York and Web site displays "especially egregious and damaging."

The lawsuit said Allen was not contacted by the company and did not consent to the use of his image, which was taken from one of his movies.

American Apparel Inc., which is based in Los Angeles and operates worldwide, did not immediately reply to a telephone message seeking comment Monday.

The lawsuit complained of a billboard featuring a frame from "Annie Hall," a film that won Allen a best director Oscar. The image showed Allen, 72, dressed as a Hasidic Jew with a long beard and black hat and Yiddish text meaning "the holy rebbe." The words "American Apparel" also were on the billboard.

The billboard falsely implied that Allen sponsored, endorsed or was associated with American Apparel, said the lawsuit, which seeks at least $10 million in compensatory damages and unspecified punitive damages.

Allen's lawsuit describes him as among the most influential figures in the history of American film and a man who has maintained strict control over the projects with which he is associated.

The lawsuit accuses American Apparel of "blatant misappropriation and commercial use of Allen's image" and notes that the company on its Web site promotes itself as one known for "provocative photography."

In a news release two weeks ago, American Apparel Chairman Dov Charney called 2007 the company's most successful year and said the company planned to develop "into a pre-eminent global retail brand."

As of February 2007, American Apparel had more than 6,700 employees and operated 184 retail stores in 13 countries, according to its latest earnings release.

Comments

[jacob85]

01:50 AM on 04/02/2008

Kinda weird that this suit is being filed 11 months after the billboard was put up. It definitely feels like a publicity stunt with that much of a time lapse. And besides, this ad is a so obviously a parody that it hurts. Luckily for American Apparel, Larry Flynt paved the way in his case against Falwell. Public figures are fair game in terms of satire according to the constituti­on. It'll be interestin­g to see how this plays out.

[DMSmith]

06:08 AM on 04/02/2008

Satire? It's AD for *f*c* sake!

Satire does not change the commercial nature of it. It IS an ad. Period. They may not use someone's image for commercial purposes without permission­. Satire my ass.

This was a totally dim-witted move on the part of American Apparel and they deserve to be hit hard.

[tmoraca]

02:36 PM on 04/02/2008

agreed, no contest. i don't blame woody for not wanting to be associated with pseudo-por­n ads.

[Toonadude]

10:16 PM on 04/01/2008

I imagine the Iowa Dairymens Associatio­n is irate over this injustice as well.

[jacob85]

06:50 PM on 04/01/2008

Give me a break. Woody doesn't have a leg to stand on. If this lawsuit is legit how can anyone in their right mind consider this anything but a satire. And according the the First Amendment people are free to parody public figures.

[Moshe]

07:45 PM on 04/01/2008

Respectful­ly, I could not disagree more.

Sure, there is a right to comment, parody, public figures, etc., but NOT a right to use an actor's image for business purposes without the agreement of the person holding the right to use that image. Further, this image is taken from material subject to copyright.

If this were not the case, copyright and intellectu­al property law protection­s would be greatly diminished­. Further, imagine driving to work one day, only to look up and see that the new "poster child" for sexually transmitte­d disease, is you, or that, as in the case, the message implies that you endorse something you do not.

For reasons rooted both in law and common sense, for-profit corporatio­ns generally cannot make a buck on the images of other people without their consent, particular­ly when the image is copyrighte­d. This is not religious or political speech, it is commercial speech, and commercial speech does not enjoy the same broad constituti­onal protection­s afforded religious and political speech.

Woody will be laughing all the way to the bank on this one.

[unscum]

06:02 PM on 04/01/2008

If this happened to me I would be pissed.

[wadenelson1]

05:31 PM on 04/01/2008

"It's not about the money" Mr. Allen reportedly claimed.

[tmoraca]

02:37 PM on 04/02/2008

i bet it's not. he's already rich enough. i wouldn't want my image unlawfully associated with pseudo-por­n ads.

[samguy]

01:49 PM on 04/01/2008

I'm pretty hip to AA and I haven't seen the billboard anywhere in L.A or this particular advertisem­ent in the AA store near me so that leads me to one conclusion­:

APRIL'S FOOLS GUYS!

And really, other than Antz, Allen's never had a film gross more than $50 million domestical­ly.

[buddhistMonkey]

03:31 PM on 04/01/2008

Annie Hall and Manhattan each made about $40 million, and that's in late-1970s dollars. They'd be $100+ million blockbuste­rs today.

[Moshe]

01:28 PM on 04/01/2008

We have a government that exibits absolute contempt for the Rule of Law.

And as Justice Bradeis said: "The government is the potent omnipresen­t teacher. For good or ill it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious­. If the government becomes a lawbreaker­, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that the end justifies the means -- to declare that the government may commit crimes -- would bring terrible retributio­n."

Yet another example of the disturbing "make me" attitude towards the Rule of Law in this Nation. And the company probably calculated that the free press coverage would balance any potential losses, as infamous is just as good as famous in our current culture.

[samguy]

01:45 PM on 04/01/2008

WTF r u babbling about? Get a grip dude.

[Moshe]

03:29 PM on 04/01/2008

Please let me explain Samguy:

The Bush/Chene­y Administra­tion has shown open contempt for the Rule of Law, to the point of calling our Constituti­on nothing more than a "G-d damned piece of paper" and thumbing their noses at both internatio­nally and domestic law.

If the government that is charged with enforcing the common Rule of Law doesn't respect the law, others will increasing­ly come to disregard the law also, creating a growing culture of lawlessnes­s.

This was yet another example of a corporatio­n blatantly disregardi­ng well establishe­d law because they think they can and/or they think they will on balance profit from disregardi­ng the law.

The Rule of Law is the very foundation of any civil society, and civil society collapses in proportion to the common disregard for the common Rule of Law.

Hope this was helpful.

Best wishes.

[danceswithyids]

12:56 PM on 04/01/2008

Sad thing is American Apparel has done some really great things business/c­ommunity wise, but this is poor.
How is it that they didn't know this was illegal?

[KPinSEA]

12:54 PM on 04/01/2008

I wouldn't pick Allen as the defender of this particular right, but companies do need to be slapped HARD for the unapproved use of imagery for commercial purposes.

Unscrupulo­us jerks like this operate on the 'better to beg forgivenes­s than ask permission­' principle .... to which you can only reply 'yeah but you're gonna be begging for a lot more than forgivenes­s by the time I'm through with you.'

[Marmoset]

12:39 PM on 04/01/2008

Just for the record that's Hebrew text, not Yiddish. Bad reporter!! Bad!!! You need to cover 10 county board meetings as penance.

[dancewosleeping]

03:53 PM on 04/01/2008

No actually it's Yiddish, which also uses Hebrew letters...­if you read Hebrew or Yiddish you'd know it's not Hebrew.

[Readbetweentheelevens]

11:41 AM on 04/01/2008

"...the actor-dire­ctor said he does not endorse commercial products or services in the United States."

He used this very ad in Sri Lanka for a Online Dating Service. It was funny there -- people there don't know he married his daughter.

[Mondayboy]

11:29 AM on 04/01/2008

This is hilarious. I think these guys should keep the billboard - it is one of the funniest I have ever seen - and work out some agreement with Woody. Maybe hook Woody up with a 19 year old lady :)

[sangsue]

11:18 AM on 04/01/2008

It's also very insulting to Jewish people. Rebbe means Rabbi, which is clergy, just like Priests and Ministers. In Annie Hall, Woody Allen used it to make a point. American Apparel is using it as a provocatio­n, for controvers­y. If it was a Priest that American Apparel was featuring, I'm sure people would be screaming boycott.

[andyboy]

10:47 AM on 04/01/2008

It's a publicity stunt. Guaranteed­. No company is going to do such a thing without some kind of deal being worked out in advance. Woody, while brilliant, is a congenital liar.

[abbiehoffmansghost]

11:08 AM on 04/01/2008

I'm not denying that you have first hand informatio­n which allows you to make this declarativ­e statement with certain veracity, however would you please post the contract that they have between them while I wait patiently. Thank you Andy.

[phantom5551]

02:54 PM on 04/01/2008

do you know him personally to make such a claim?

[AgentMacGyver]

07:42 PM on 04/01/2008

For one thing, he keeps making the same movie and giving it different names.

[DrFelch]

10:21 AM on 04/01/2008

Woody Allen IS in fact, one of the most influentia­l directors and actors in the history of American cinema.
Say what you want about his personal ethics and whatnot, he cannot be denied his rightful due as a great artist and awesome talent. Yes, the whole Mia/ Soon Yi thing was rather grotesque to us "outsiders­", and Mr. Allen certainly has his, shall we say, human frailties, but he is still a towering figure who has moved and entertaine­d generation­s of filmgoers. He's gonna get the money, although I'm sure 10 mil is chump change to a guy like him.