Despite the fact he’s suing them for millions of dollars, American Apparel loves Woody Allen. After all, that is why they put him on their billboards without permission in the first place. Still, the LA clothing manufacturer remains firm, claiming that Allen’s image isn’t worth all the money he’s asking for, especially not after his scandalous marriage to Soon-Yi Previn, the adopted daughter of his former girlfriend, Mia Farrow.
Earlier this week, new court papers were filed indicating Dov Charney’s legal team is set to prove that “Mr. Allen is not an appropriate person to discuss any value of any endorsement.†In addition to documents on his relationship with Previn, possibly including nude photos, their evidence includes Mia Farrow’s 1997 memoir which claims Allen couldn’t remember the names of pets, doctors, teachers and friends, or the fact that their son had cerebral palsy.
Gothamist obtained an internal memo from American Apparel that claims the billboards were “intended to be a social statement not an ad” about “what media scandal feels like and how quickly the truth gets lost,” which boils down to the clothing company starting a new conflict to deal with an old one, Dov Charney’s sexual harassment lawsuits. The memo also denies requesting nude photos of Soon-Yi Previn and then goes on to describe Charney’s love for Allen and good intentions in using his image without asking, which probably doesn’t carry much weight when the case goes to trial on May 18th.
Photo of American Apparel model Natasha Komis and Dov Charney from Jezebel and photo of Woody Allen and Soon-Li Previn from Zimbio
Maybe this wouldn't be such an issue if the retarded lawyers weren't baiting each other in the media everyday.
Woody and Dov should be big fans of each other. and at the end of the day, considering that Jerry Seinfeld got $15 million for his Microsoft ads, I think we can all admit that a Woody Allen billboard isn't worth eight figures.
On the contrary, a Microsoft series of advertisements featuring Woody Allen would be like little movies and very entertaining considering that Woody doesn't even use a computer. I can't imagine that Microsoft wouldn't have entertained the idea of using Woody if they could have gotten him… That Jerry Seinfeld received $15 million for the series of ads only strengthens Woody's case – imagine what they would have paid Woody? Any major corporation in America would jump at the chance to have a series of ads featuring Woody, but he's not interested, at least not in the US.
@John
You're chasing a false lead. This case is hardly about what Woody's image is worth. Put the pre-trial posturing aside and this case is fundamentally about the first amendment. The ability to parody people should be extended to companies just as much as it's afforded to individuals. I'm just a low level American Apparel employee so I can't speak too much on the issue but I think it's pretty clear that we were making fun of our negative image and Woody's public stereoptype. I can't look at the sales figures but this billboard wasn't about clothes. It was a social statement, just like Iris wrote in her memo.
This is not a parody. It would have been a parody if Dov Charney had dressed up like Woody Allen's rabbi in Annie Hall. Instead, they stole Woody's image. I don't think the parody argument stands a chance. Making fun of American Apparel's "negative image" by using Woody's image? Why didn't Dov poke fun of himself if that was the intent. Parody is a lame argument here. The fact is they stole the image and now complain about the price.