Woody Allen and Dov Charney: Who's the Mensch?

Talk about the courthouse steps... as jury selection was about to begin yesterday in Woody Allen's suit against American Apparel CEO and sleazeball Dov Charney, a $5 million settlement was announced.

The suit was for $10 million; half that as a settlement in an American litigation is about as great as you're ever going to get. The Woodman has made more out of this suit than he ever makes from a movie. What's more, a settlement without any nondisclosure agreements means you've really hit the ball out of the park. The other side just rolled over -- decided it would do anything not to go to a jury.

It's a sleaze settlement. That is, the entire tussle, while ostensibly about rights of publicity -- American Apparel used an unauthorized image of Woody Allen in an advertising campaign -- is about who's grosser.

Woody, of course, ran off with his girlfriend's adopted teenage daughter more than a decade and a half ago, turning himself into an enduring symbol of scuz. Dov Charney has used a photographic approach that might be characterized as underage retro porn as American Apparel's branding theme. Charney, who often takes the pictures himself, recently approached my daughter in Union Square Park in New York and gave her his business card in case she ever wanted to model for him.

Continue reading on newser.com

Comments

[pizzmoe]

Woody was right here, and no, he isn't a "scuz", but thanks for the judgment.

[Glenn1441]

You're kidding, right?

We have accepted as truth that actors, musicians, performers and even directors most forfeit their personal lives to public consumption and scrutiny as recompense for celebrity.

Regardless of what one thinks of Allen's morals, he is rightly considered one of the world's great film directors. He directs films. Many of those films have been tremendous hits.

Allen does his job and does it well. His success has been earned, and the rights to his image are his alone.

Whether or not American Apparel willingly courted publicity by choosing to use Allen's image without permission (as some have put forth) remains a mystery. But one thing is clear: Allen did no such thing, and has maintained a firm hold on his image as regards endorsements (he doesn't endorse) throughout his long career.

Scuz or not, Allen's personal life has nothing to do with AA's blatant and unauthorized use of his image, or its opinion of the worth of Allen's image. If perceptions of Allen's moral standing are as low as both AA and you would have it, then it defies imagination that Allen's films 'Match Point' of 2005 and 'Vicky Cristina Barcelona of 2008' garnered such excellent reviews, and awards nominations/awards worldwide.

Ditto for director Roman Polanski.

[RevBookburn]

Thank you. I will always respect Woody for the brilliant and classic films spanning his entire career. Whether or not he is a 'scuz' is up to the opinions of judgemental people. The unauthorized use of his image meant he deserved to win a lawsuit. The easy settlement proved that they knew it too. Charney made himself obvious when he pronounced so much judgement on Allen. He's not a guy who should be around Hannah Montana. Rev. Bookburn - Radio Volta

[LMPE]

When'll there be a way to have parts of my memory erased like in "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind"?

[BottomLine2008]

Oh, more deep thoughts ...