How Stupid Is American Apparel?

Of all the things that shock and awe me these days - and there are so many - for some reason this little piece of news blew my freakin' mind. In response to the 10 million dollar suit Woody Allen filed against American Apparel for the unauthorized use of his image:

"American Apparel lawyer Stuart Slotnick said the company plans to make Allen's relationships to actress Mia Farrow and her adopted daughter Soon-Yi Previn, whom Allen married, the focus of a trial scheduled to begin in federal court in Manhattan on May 18.

'Woody Allen expects $10 million for use of his image on billboards that were up and down in less than one week,' Slotnick said. 'I think Woody Allen overestimates the value of his image.'"

Let's get this straight, American Apparel, an enormous company with stores all over the country, doesn't have the common sense to follow the laws that almost every normal person knows, i.e. you can't use someone's image in an advertising promotion without their permission and - unless you're looking for a big mondo fat lawsuit - you certainly can't use a celebrity's image without their permission.

Yeah, for some reason American Apparel does not think this law applies to them. They just ignore it and, smack, bam, slam, they put up a billboard with Woody Allen's face on it.

They are arrogant. They are stupid. They screw up.

But then, when they get sued, they go one step further, they attack the person who is suing them. They attempt to humiliate him.

I am not saying Woody Allen is a saint. I don't know the man. On the one hand, he's got a complex personal history, etc, so maybe he's some kind of weird deviant, but on the other hand his last movie had Scarlett Johansson making out with Penelope Cruz, so maybe he's America's greatest living artistic genius. I can't say.

But I do know this: Clearly his image is worth something or -- guess what -- They Would Not Have Used It In A Billboard.

As far as public relations goes, Stuart Slotnick's response to this lawsuit is one of the most absolutely moronic moves I have ever seen anyone make. If I owned American Apparel I would be apoplectic, I would be enraged, I would sue my lawyer Stuart Slotnick for ten million dollars for humiliating me and driving my company's already dubious reputation further into the gutter.

It's easy to accuse Stuart Slotnick of giving lawyers a bad name, but then again he has to live with the name Stuart Slotnick. And maybe that's bad enough.

Comments

[darker]

What rules in America is SUCCESS, NOT ETHICS.
Success is WHAT YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH.

[darker]

Geez, why should US Corporations and their CEOs (corporate "kings") think they need
to follow the law when no laws seem to ever be applied to them? ?

[jesselee26]

stupid enough to amass a fortune selling cheap regurgitation to the hipster set

[SeaKitten]

Even a creepy little man who seduces his wife's daughter is entitled to legal protection. He should permitted to deliver a "large and painful hickey" a la his threat to Diane Keaton's character in Sleeper.

[Peter Alcivar]

All true--except that Mia Farrow was never his wife.

[NWMonkeyGirl]

But isn't that the 'American way'?

1. The law doesn't apply to me.
2. Ask for forgiveness instead of permission.

and our newest since the wall-street bailout...

3. It's not illegal until you get caught.

[fusionfan]

Well, OK. But if this guy Dov Charney really does make all his clothes in L.A. using American workers and pays them a decent wage, as his video on his website claims, then he deserves a break, since this is so rare these days.

[KickerBoard]

Check your dictionary: "non-sequitur"

[JonathanDS]

This could be more complicated than what our knee-jerk immediate reactions might indicate. When someone graduates to the role of being an icon, such as Ghandi, a president, etc., we know it isn't a matter for securing legal permissions. Mickey Mouse, The Beatles, and others who fall into the category of being pop icons, on the other hand, do have legal control over certain use of their images, however much certain images may become common knowledge. It has always bothered me that back in the '60s while The Beatles were so much a part of everything, characters on TV shows lived in a world where the existence of record players could be acknowledged, yet the TV characters otherwise lived on this planet where the presence of The Beatles was scarcely acknowledged, no rooms with Beatle posters at least (I expect legal arrangements were involved the few times such natural parts of the scenary did surface). It's unreal, yet there is an obvious logic that defends these legal protections. Perhaps the laws have to catch up with the real world when it comes to this kind of thing.

[sabrinaqedesha]

"Mickey Mouse" -- apparently you have not noticed or googled to find out how many lawsuits Disney has filed over the years. Many, many people have attempted to use Disney images for their own profits.

Regarding American Apparel and Woody Allen -- i almost have to wonder if there isn't someone in the company's management with such a profound hatred for Allen that they see this as worth the expense and aggravation just to strike at him.

[Peter Alcivar]

Does Mia have a controlling interest in American Apparel?

This whole thing is just stupid. I agree completely with the post--anyone with a shred of common sense would say that if Woody has such a bad reputation, then why use his image in your advertising in the first place--and without permission to boot? Every independent professional photographer knows not to advertise with anyone's image without a proper release.

Not a slave to fashion myself, I know nothing about American Apparel, so I don't know what demographic they appeal to. Even before his troubles, Woody Allen has never been a hugely popular figure in American culture. I would guess that most Americans know him as somebody who made a few funny movies in the 1970s and then stopped being funny and finally disappeared, until the whole Mia/Soon Yi scandal blew open. So to whom are they trying to appeal? And then for Slotnick to bring up the scandal is just unconscionable. He needs to have his nose run over by a steam roller.

[yorkriver1]

A TV show from the 80's/90's, LA Law, had stories based on seemingly absurd legal battles, frivolous lawsuits, characters with outrageous chutzpah and scorched earth legal tactics. As a former LA resident, I could see that the outlandish stories weren't actually that far from the norm in Los Angeles. I know someone who was called as a juror for a trial in Santa Monica (this went to trial?) of two Malibu neighbors fighting over where trees were planted on their adjacent properties. At least one of these disputatious homeowners was a lawyer, actually a partner in a firm....... I am trying to remember if the judge threw it out and admonished the involved parties.
Isn't American Apparel based in Los Angeles? In other words, there apparently are some who have absolutely no scruples about doing whatever it takes to win.
Woody has been legally wronged here. Sorry that his past has been dragged out. For some, his being a sympathetic character here is a stretch, but I am on his side.

[ricland]

Yeah, I'm wondering what the end-game here is too.

They had a fighting chance to get out of the thing for a few million, now the judge -- who's probably an Allen fan -- will probably tack on another 5 mil for all of the grief they're giving the poor man. Remember, Allen is now a senior citizen.

Maybe Slotnick thinks he's getting free advertising for his law firm.

By the way, Slotnick is a great name for a lawyer. I'm black, but if I were a lawyer I'd change my name to Sidney Slotnick just to have everybody pee in their pants when they get a letter from me.

[Margaretpoa]

Sounds like it may have been Stuart Slotnick who originally told them that they could use Allen's image in the first place. Maybe they should hire a real lawyer and fire the owner's brother in law, (which is exactly what Slotnick comes off as)

[John10069]

You are absolutely right Toby. Woody is being harmed here, and their response to his outrage is to harm him further. Dov is a creep for sure. But the lawyer is using outrageous tactics to defend their outrageous behavior - and it seems that perhaps it's their only tactic to try to win their case.

If I were Dov, I'd settle this quietly. The case will be heard in New York - and everyone knows that Woody Allen is an American icon famous for being a New Yorker. Dov is falling into a trap here and he certainly will sue his lawyer when Woody wins big time.

If I were Dov's lawyer, I'd learn how to grovel. I'd consider learning how to beg.

[Glenn1441]

In response to several comments posted below regarding Woody Allen's reputation as a sleazy deviant:

Allen is a filmmaker, and thus, an entertainer. He is not a role model. Nor are actors, actresses, singers, etc.

One human being can inspire others via an inspiring act (or two, or three), but to assume that individual as a role model is both an invitation to disappointment, and absurd.

Allen does his job. He makes films. He entertains us. Job completed. That his job is one of the world's highest paying is simply a matter of numbers: Millions of heads in movie theaters worldwide. He's earned his keep. He owes nothing more. If he wants to screw chickens in his back yard -- good on him.

American Apparel is indeed moronic. I share Barlow's incredulity.

[JoeSchmuk]

Anybody who watches and or likes Woody Allen movies (plural - and just how many people does that actually add up to) and now sees or hears about the adds has been affected/influenced by that add. That's the market AA has tapped. i otta know. I've never heard of AA until this story, so now i will notice them the next time i see them. And who knows, maybe i will buy something of theirs. Not likely in my case, but that's the value of Mr. Allen's claim. At what, a buck a head, no, even a nickle a head, that's got to be a lot of payola.

AA is ahead either way, 'cause now even people who don't know Mr. Allen's work will have heard of AA. Sounds like another case of the tail wagging the dog, with the media playing the mutt once again.

[krisgarfield]

Woody Allen is suing for 10 million to get his point across. I don't think he actually expects to receive this amount. Look, I'm not impressed with Mr. Allen's relationships with women and girls, but AA really screwed this up. It's a shame because they do have a stellar rep as far as workers being paid a fair wage and the clothing being produced in the US.

They should not have used his image with out his approval. Period. I hope this does not harm those workers...it could take a chunk of change out of their pockets in the long run.

Ego vs. Ego.

[doodlefarbe]

Asking for $10,000,000 for a billboard that was up for a week, with the words "American Apparel" and the image of Dear Woody dressed up as a Hasidic Jew?

Sounds like an extreme request that was met with an extreme response.

[RobHunt]

Two extreme requests, huh?

Except one party, a large corporation, STOLE SOMETHING from another party, a private citizen. They stole his image because they were unable to BUY it. If you don't see a problem there, it's because you believe that people SHOULD be able to take what does not belong to them, if a greater good is served.

"That clothing company employs people who need to feed their families. We don't want to have to bail them out do we? They should be allowed to use an image here or there if it helps them sell clothes, right? You aren't against them selling clothes, right?"

After all, it's nothing Nancy Pelosi and her pals aren't doing on a far grander scale. They're taking money that my kid is hoping to earn in 2030 and giving it to ACORN for use in the mid-term elections.

[rowzeer]

Funny how McCain, Schwarzenegger and other Repubs didn't have a problem with Obama until they endorsed O.

[rowzeer]

meant to say "didn't have a problem with ACORN" ...typing too fast