Font Size: 
Woody Allen Headed to Trial Against American Apparel in the Case of the Purloined Image
The American Lawyer
May 18, 2009
As a cultural icon, film director Woody Allen has few modern peers. But is his image, used briefly in ads for the clothing company American Apparel in New York and Los Angeles, worth $10 million? That's the question a jury will be asked to answer in a trial set to begin Monday in Manhattan federal district court. The tabloid-ready case pits Allen against a company best known for its risque ads and the alleged sexual escapades of its founder, Dov Charney.
Allen filed his complaint against American Apparel last year, after the company ran online and billboard ads featuring photos of the famed actor and director dressed as an orthodox Jew from his 1977 movie, "Annie Hall." The billboards, which were up in New York and Los Angeles for less than a week, included Yiddish script and American Apparel's name.
Allen, who rarely appears in commercial advertisements, said that American Apparel had not sought his permission to use the photos, that he found American Apparel's ads offensive, and that he didn't want to be connected to the company. He claimed American Apparel owed him $10 million in damages.
Things soon got nasty. In court papers filed April 20, American Apparel, represented by Stuart Slotnick of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, called Allen's demand for damages "outrageous," claiming the value of his endorsement fell after a sex scandal and custody battle involving his former long-term companion, Mia Farrow, and Farrow's adopted daughter Soon-Yi Previn. (In case you've somehow managed to forget the sordid details, Farrow split with Allen after discovering that he was having an affair with her barely adult, adopted daughter.)
Allen's lawyers, Michael Zweig and Christian Carbone of Loeb & Loeb, countered that American Apparel was trying to turn the discovery process into "an unfettered exploration of Mr. Allen's family life, personal finances, and career." (Zweig didn't return our call for comment.)
Manhattan federal district court judge Thomas Griesa apparently agreed, rejecting on April 24 American Apparel's "overly broad" request to force Allen to reveal documents related to past product endorsements, performances and interview transcripts. "There is no reason to require Allen to produce documents regarding each of his personal appearances and performances during his lengthy career," Griesa wrote. "This information would not provide meaningful evidence of the value of defendant's endorsement."
Following the ruling -- and after the appearance of several news articles that said the defense might call Mia Farrow or Soon Yi Previn as witnesses in the trial -- Dov Charney (who has been sued four times for sexual harassment) issued a statement on his Web site, in which he said that the billboards "were intended to be a parody/social statement and comedic satire to provoke discussion and public discourse about the baseless claims that had been made against American Apparel and myself, society's reaction to lawsuits that delve into an individual's private sexual life, and the media's sensationalism of such matters." Well, okay then.
American Apparel counsel Slotnick didn't return our call, but look for the company to cite the First Amendment at trial. In American Apparel's answer to Allen's complaint, the company cites free speech, public interest, fair use, parody and social commentary as defenses to Allen's claims that the company owes him damages for using his likeness without permission.
This article first appeared on The Am Law Litigation Daily blog on AmericanLawyer.com.
