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

[Sundialsvc4]

It sounds to me like a Federal injunction should be available by this afternoon. You do, in fact, have a right to commercial use of your own image, particularly when you make your living by it and therefore misuse of the image would be damaging. It is "de facto" obvious that the man in the poster is Woody, that the purpose of the image is to depict not just any man but specifically Woody, and that the image would be of no equivalent value if any non-famous person's visage were substituted. You don't need a jury to decide this one... only a gavel.

[saxmaniac]

As a Public Relations professional, as well as professor of PR at a well-known university, allow me to explain that Woody is completely within his right to sue -- and collect -- since they did not get his permission. On the other hand, this is a perfect example of the new "gotcha tactics" in which the free publicity will more than offset the lawsuit. They'll probably settle quickly, and the company will revel in it's new-found visibility. Hopefully one of the their garments will be involved in some terrible tragedy, so that the company will always be remembered for something awful. Oy, the payback!

[theJuanStar]

American Apperal is known for "unique" business practices. As the average American Apperal customer has no idea about Annie Hall or Woodie Allen, I'm interested to see where this leads.

[phantom5551]

the issue is not whether or not the "average American Apperal customer has no idea about Annie Hall or Woodie Allen" but the fact that they used his image from one of his movies without his authorization to promote their products

[TheShoveler]

The first amendment bar keeps pushing the envelope on this type of case, telling their clients, "Yeah, it's okay to use the photo; after all, the ad is just satire, no one will take it seriously, and no one will really believe that Allen has endorsed the product. It's variously called "misappropriation of name or likeness," or "violation of the right of publicity," or "violation of New York's Civil Rights Law Secs. 50-51" (there's an analagous California statute as well). Basically, in this graphics-starved world, big corporations would like nothing better than to use your photograph or mine (and I'm much handsomer than Woody Allen, so I'm pissed) to represent whatever idea, mood, or product they wish to represent, and they would like to do this without having to pay a dime for the privilege. After all, once you stick your head out the door of your home or office, doesn't your visage belong to the public domain? That's their story.

Well, Allen already won one of these lawsuits years ago. And I hope he clips their wings again. Even celebrities have some privacy and property rights.

[goatboyslim]

The amount of publicity they just bought with their 10 mil is probably worth it: I have never heard of this company until I read this story.....­...

[ENK727]

Very stupid of a company like this to use someone's image without their permission.

[Jimmyboyo]

I agree Enk

I am not a lawyer nor a biz owner ,but even I know you can't use someone's image without their consent.


Though I totaly disagree on Allen being "the most influential figures in the history of American film"

[jayburd]

Yeah, it's a little bit...TOO stupid.

I'm not given to conspiracy theories but this story has "publicity stunt" written all over it...

[truthyguy]

Looks like a $10 Million oops. Who the hell is that company's trademark/copyright counsel? Hope they have malpractice insurance.

[LegalCat]

Are you kidding? $10 million is a fairly moderate amount in comparison to a national advertising budget. And now Huffington Post and a gazillion other media outlets are plastering the name American Apparel all over their front pages. Do suppose this is accidental? How much would they have had to pay to buy all this publicity that they're now getting for free? I firmly believe that they sat around and considered the economics very carefully and decided that this is a highly efficient use of their advertising dollars.

[Agentprovokatur]

You are probably correct on the economic analysis angle.

If companies have done such calculations when determining to recal their products which are KILLING people, why wouldn't a clothing company do it when nothing so dear is at stake.

[villastrangiato]

Wonder if they have a good lawyer....­..LOL!!!

[Bararoco]

An insider told me it's just a publicity stunt to promote Woody's upcoming film.

[abbiehoffmansghost]

Thank for the insight. It makes perfect sense to use a photo from a 30+ year old film to promote a new one. I'm sure that the relationship of the two will not be lost on todays brilliant youth.