More

Woody Allen, American Apparel settle suit for $5M

TOM HAYS   05/18/09 09:34 PM ET   AP

Woody Allen

NEW YORK — Woody Allen agreed Monday to a $5 million settlement in his lawsuit accusing American Apparel of using an image parodying him as a rabbi without his permission.

Both sides announced the settlement _ to be paid by American Apparel Inc.'s insurance company _ on the morning a trial was to start in federal court in Manhattan.

Reading from a statement outside court, Allen said he hoped the outcome "would discourage American Apparel or anyone else from ever trying such a thing again." His lawyers said the $5 million appeared to be the largest amount ever paid to settle a lawsuit brought under state privacy statutes.

American Apparel president Dov Charney told reporters it wasn't his decision to settle. The Los Angeles-based company's insurance company "controlled the defense" in the case, he said.

"I'm not sorry for expressing myself," he said.

Allen, 73, sued the trendy clothing company last year for $10 million after the advertisements turned up on billboards in Hollywood and New York and on a Web site. Using a frame from the film "Annie Hall," the ads depicted Allen as a Hasidic Jew _ long beard, side curls, black hat _ and featured Yiddish text meaning "the holy rebbe."

Court papers filed on Allen's behalf had described the actor-director as one of the most influential figures in the history of American film and said he believes maintaining strict control over his image has been critical to his success.

The papers claimed Allen hasn't done commercials in the United States since 1960s, when he was a struggling standup comic. The billboards, he says, falsely implied he endorsed a clothing line known for its racy advertising _ a "blatant misappropriation and commercial use of Allen's image."

American Apparel lawyers had called the $10 million demand "outrageous," especially since the billboards were taken down after a week. They also had threatened to call Allen's former longtime companion, actress Mia Farrow, and his current wife, Soon-Yi Previn, as witnesses to show that his image has already been devalued by scandal. Previn is Farrow's adopted daughter.

Farrow starred in several of Allen's movies, including "Crimes and Misdemeanors." Their relationship ended in 1992, when she discovered he was having an affair with Previn, then 22.

On Monday, Allen blasted American Apparel, calling their First Amendment defense "sheer nonsense" and accusing of it of trying "to smear me."

Charney insisted there were no hard feelings, saying the billboards were misunderstood.

"We would never try to malign the dignity of Mr. Allen," he said. "I have respect for Mr. Allen. ... I hope to meet him on more friendly terms at a different point."

Meanwhile, American Apparel posted a first-quarter loss of $9 million and its shares slid Monday in aftermarket trading.

Charney said the business was hurt by severe liquidity constraints.

The retailer lowered its yearly revenue outlook, and the stock sank 19.6 percent to $4.40 in aftermarket trading, after ending the regular session up 38 cents at $5.47.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST ENTERTAINMENT

Filed by Katherine Thomson  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 354
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (6 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:43 AM on 05/19/2009
boy, he looks baaaaad---------his evolution into the sunset will be no loss----
09:12 AM on 05/19/2009
This is a no-brainer. American Apparel was in the wrong, even if Woody Allen is a creep personally.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
snoopjohnny
12:54 PM on 05/19/2009
Definitely. And just as importantly, American Apparel really picked the wrong aging film icon to "get over on". Allen is famously thin-skinned and sensitive about rights involving privacy/publicity. Especially his.
photo
Bettysdad
The arc of human history is to the left.
03:02 AM on 05/19/2009
American Apparel got waaaay more than $5 mil in publicity for this clearly illegal stunt.

And that's what it was all about.

An intelligent dog knows this was illegal.
10:35 AM on 05/19/2009
Yeah, I'm not so sure about that. If this was just for $5 million worth of publicity, why would Dov choose Woody Allen and not someone out of the current pop culture? I'd say that Woody Allen is not well known outside of certain circles, a portion of Huffington Post readers, for example.

I think this was just arrogance. $5 million is a lot of money.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:14 AM on 05/19/2009
People, get a clue. The issue is not whether Woody Allen is a creep. The issue is whether a company can use his image and likeness to make it appear as he is endorsing a product, without his consent. A company should not be able to appropriate someone's image and likeness for that purpose. AA was going to lose big in court because they had no viable defense. Their only fig-leaf of a defense was "Woody Allen's image and likeness wasn't worth much, because of the scandal with Soon-Yi." But that was obviously undercut by the fact that AA used Woody's image and likeness to promote their product. Obviously Woody's image and likeness was worth a lot to AA. A jury would have easily found that AA was talking out of both sides of its mouth, and would have awarded at least 10 mil in damages. AA got off cheap, and their lawyers know it.
01:57 AM on 05/19/2009
here here. Thanks for that. And I might add that the whole creep business is really just busybody judging nosiness. Really, what do any of us really know about their relationship? They are still together right? And it's been a realllllllllly long time. She's not a kid anymore and she chooses to stay with him. get over it.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
blytzd
10:47 PM on 05/18/2009
This should be overturned since the plaintiff filed false claims with the court-

"Court papers filed on Allen's behalf had described the actor-director as one of the most influential figures in the history of American film"

Yeah right.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Cycadeoidea
Political doodler
11:07 PM on 05/18/2009
And how would you know otherwise? Seriously.
11:45 PM on 05/18/2009
You can be sleazy and influential at the same time.
photo
Bettysdad
The arc of human history is to the left.
03:03 AM on 05/19/2009
Who says he's sleazy?

You?
10:33 PM on 05/18/2009
The moral crime of the soon yi situation is that she is his adopted son's sister. That makes it incestuous and creepy.
11:54 PM on 05/18/2009
It may be creepy to you but it is not incestuous. No more so than having a child while dating a woman, then dating her mother and having another child (through IVF).
photo
Readbetweentheelevens
"You can't turn the wind, so turn the sail."
12:04 AM on 05/19/2009
When asked by Acting Justice Elliott Wilk whether he thought of the effect it would have on the other children, Mr. Allen said, "I felt nobody in the world would have any idea."

Justice Wilk asked, "Wasn't that enough, that you would know that you were sleeping with your children's sister?"

Mr. Allen answered: "I didn't see it that way. I'm sorry."
02:11 AM on 05/19/2009
She is not his adopted son's sister.
09:14 PM on 05/18/2009
Very good news! American Apparel deserved to be sued. They aren't good enough to clean Woody's toilet. Let's explore their lives more. Rev. Bookburn - Radio Volta
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
SarcasticFringehead
Mute Nostril Agony
09:10 PM on 05/18/2009
Oh, man.
Woody pretty much had an open-and-shut case here.
Whoever it was in the legal department of American Apparel who allowed this 5 million dollar blunder to occur, should be fired and disbarred for incompetence.
Sorry, American Apparel.
photo
Cookie100
Old enough to know better
08:52 PM on 05/18/2009
I saw a story (60 minutes maybe) years ago Dov Charney. Apparently he's not an easy guy to work for.

His young, some very young, female employees have filed sexual harassment charges against him

many times. What a creep.

Dov, pick on someone your own age, what are you 60?
08:27 PM on 05/18/2009
Gosh, just Google for an image of this Charney guy... what a creep.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:10 PM on 05/18/2009
Regardless of one's opinion of Woody. AA was dead wrong and made it significantly worse by its horrible behavior after the fact. I won't shop there anymore.
07:56 PM on 05/18/2009
Hate to see him looking so old.
08:16 PM on 05/18/2009
He IS old. Would you rather he dye his hair, cut up his face and all that stuff?
09:00 PM on 05/18/2009
Yeah, like totally... Shallow person...
12:17 AM on 05/19/2009
You totally miss the point. He's old, I'm old, it's hard to get old, it's hard to see those around you get old. That's all I was saying. When you are old, you'll get it.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:54 PM on 05/18/2009
Not true she was 17 (age of consent is 16 in NY) but still a legal minor (less than 18).
08:02 PM on 05/18/2009
She was 17 when he met her; not the same as when they "got together". Anyway, they got married as soon as she was old enough, so who cares? Farrow is a nutter and control freak like Octomom.
09:16 PM on 05/18/2009
Darfur. Been there? Farrow has.
09:47 PM on 05/18/2009
haha
12:03 AM on 05/19/2009
Soon-Yi and Woody started having a romantic relationship when she was 21, they married a year later.

Let us not forget Mia's transgressions. She was Andre Previn's mistress and got pregnant. That broke up the Previn marriage, with his wife having a nervous breakdown. And for all those people that cannot stand the age difference between Woody and Soon-Yi, Mia was 21 when she married 50 year old Frank Sinatra.
07:23 PM on 05/18/2009
Glad Allen won this issue. AA were clearly in the wrong. And believe me, I'm not huge Woody Allen fan. Anyone who uses his own family, extended or otherwise, as a dating pool doesn't have much ethics himself.
08:05 PM on 05/18/2009
I'm not a huge fan either (especially the more recent stuff), but the thing with Soon-Yi has been misrepresented and blown out of proportion I think. You meet someone, you fall in love. He never spent the night at Farrow's house and they really don't seem to have been much of a "couple". They DID have a child, and that's another story, but I think your comment is flip and distorts the facts.
09:15 PM on 05/18/2009
And yours doesn't? Is Mia or Woody your best friend? Not much of a "couple"? And you know this how? They were together 17 years. 17. And ah, yes, they did have a child "but that's another story?" Seems like the same story entertwined with being together 17 years, of which Allen got to watch the kids grow up. That he chose one of them from the pool of children that Mia had adopted seems a tad opportunistic, doesn't it? What's the age difference between Allen and Soon-Yi? How old was she when he first became enamored of her? Or is that "another story" too?
12:07 AM on 05/19/2009
"You meet someone, you fall in love." Woody had access to thousands of beautiful, talented, intelligent women in Manhattan in his line of work. Why did he prey on a young, vulnerable, girl who looked up to him as a father figure? I hardly think this is a question of "meeting someone and falling in love."
07:19 PM on 05/18/2009
Good for you Woody!!!! After seeing one of the ads from that company in a newspaper I wrote to
them and said all their models looked like pre-teens in provocative clothing. More like
child porn. They wrote back and said the models were all "employed in their stores." Still,
they did not address the issue of half-dressed kids.
08:06 PM on 05/18/2009
Good for you!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
SarcasticFringehead
Mute Nostril Agony
09:16 PM on 05/18/2009
Yes, I get that impression about their ads too.
They seem like warm-up shots a photographer would take at the beginning of a nude photo shoot. Get the young inexperienced girls at ease before asking them to remove their clothing -- those kind of pictures.
Kind of seedy.