Year

Country

Home

People

Films

Articles

Store

Clothing firm American Apparel advertised their wares on billboards in New York City and Hollywood in 2007, using the image of actor, writer and director Woody Allen as an Hasidic Jew in the film Annie Hall and text in Yiddish which translated as ‘the Holy Rebbe.’   Allen, who didn’t endorse products in the United States, filed suit against the company in 2008, claiming that the billboards falsely stated that he endorsed their products with disregard to his rights of privacy and publicity and that he had suffered damages to be determined in trial but to be a sum no less than $10 million.

In response, lawyer’s for Dov Charney, the 40-year-old Canadian founder and CEO of Los Angeles-based American Apparel, filed papers at Manhattan Federal Court asking for proof that Allen could still command a ‘premium price’ for his services.   Lawyer Stuart Solnick told the New York Post, ‘We believe that Mr Allen's popularity has decreased significantly, especially in light of the scandals he's been associated with.   We believe that he greatly overvalues the worth of his endorsement - if he can get one.’

The lawyers claimed that Allen’s bitter and highly publicised custody battle with ex-partner Mia Farrow, and his affair with Farrow’s adopted daughter Soon-Yi Previn had severely damaged his public image.   They also argued that the billboards in question were only up for a week in a couple of locations and were not erected for commercial purposes but were intended as a parody to make a social statement.

It soon became apparent that American Apparel intended to make Allen’s tangled relationship with Mia Farrow and Soon-Yi Previn, Ms Farrow’s adopted daughter with whom Allen had an affair, the cornerstone of their defence against the scale of damages demanded by the actor.   Allen and Farrow’s 1992 split after 12 years together was both messy and highly publicised after Farrow accused the actor of abusing their seven-year-old adopted daughter Dylan.   Although Allen wasn’t found guilty of the charges, custody of the children was awarded to Farrow.

 ‘Woody Allen expects $10 million for use of his image on billboards that were up and down in less than one week,’ said Solnick.   ‘I think Woody Allen overestimates the value of his image.  Certainly, our belief is that after the various sex scandals that Woody Allen has been associated with, corporate America's desire to have Woody Allen endorse their product is not what he may believe it is."

 Responding to suggestions that focusing on Allen’s sex life in a lawsuit over the use of his image for advertising was something of a cheap shot, Slotnick insisted that it was ‘relevant in assessing the value of an endorsement,’ and cited Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps, whose endorsement value declined noticeably after a photograph of him using marijuana was made public.

 As the date for the hearing drew near, lawyers for American Apparel complained that Allen had refused to turn over much of the information they had demanded to prepare for the trial.   The information demanded included any withdrawals of endorsement requests once the Farrow/Previn affair became public knowledge, and documents to support his claim during deposition that he was a ‘special kind of entity’ or a ‘special taste.’   Allen’s lawyers refused to hand over documents relating to the scandal and custody battle because not only were they irrelevant, they were also ‘vexatious, oppressive, and harassing.’

On the 28^th April, three weeks before the trial was due to begin, Judge Thomas Griesa ruled that Allen didn’t have to prove American Apparel’s adverts were ‘sleazy’ after he had described their campaigns as ‘sexually gross, in a witless and infantile way’ when filing suit in December 2008.   According to the New York Post Griesa said, ‘There is no reason to require him to identify specific advertisements that he finds distasteful.’

 As April turned to May, American Apparel’s defiant tone began to soften when Christian Carbone, an attorney for Allen, contested the company’s intention to demand Mia Farrow take the stand in the case, claiming that ‘It is clear that the unproven allegations from the custody dispute will be used in a most lurid manner.  On Wednesday 6^th May, Dov Charney announced he had no intention of bringing Farrow and Soon-Yi Previn to testify at the hearing.   While Charney described Allen as a ‘source of inspiration’ according to the New York Post, his attorney Stuart Slotnick confirmed that their defence would focus on free speech rights.

 ‘American Apparel has no intention of calling Mia Farrow or Mr Allen's wife as witnesses at the trial,’ Slotnick told the media on the 14^th May, four days before the trial was due to begin.   ‘At trial we will explain how the use of the image from the 'Annie Hall' film was used to make a social statement and address social issues that were already subject to public discourse.’

Court papers revealed that the idea of using Allen’s image came to Charney while he was watching a dream sequence in Allen’s Annie Hall.   The head of American Apparel identified with Allen because of negative perceptions of him due to a series of sexual harassment lawsuits against him.   The papers said that ‘not only did Mr. Charney connect to the character’s predicament in that scene (in Annie Hall), Mr. Charney connected to the public scandal that had plagued Mr Allen’s personal life'.

 Finally, the day of the trial – 18^th May 2009 – dawned, but as many had suspected, there was to be no hearing, and no defence from American Apparel following an eleventh-hour settlement which saw the clothing firm agree to pay Allen $5 million (£3.3 million) in damages for the unauthorised use of his image in return for the actor’s agreement to drop the lawsuit.

 In a prepared statement Allen told reporters, ‘I am told the settlement [that] I am being paid is the largest reported amount ever paid under the New York 'right to privacy' law.   It is of course possible by going through the trial a jury might have awarded me more money, but this is not how I make my living and $5 million is enough to discourage American Apparel or anyone else from ever trying such a thing again.’

 Charney informed reporters that he had been forced to settle by American Apparel’s insurance company who would pay most of the damages.  He insisted ‘I’m not sorry for expressing myself.   I have respect for Mr. Allen [and] look forward to his next film.   I hope to meet him on more friendly terms at a different point.'  [ADD]