Woody Allen Sues American Apparel
Seeks at least $10 million from clothing manufacturer.
Surprised to see Annie Hall-themed ads from American Apparel last year? You weren't the only one.
Woody Allen has filed a lawsuit against American Apparel, saying the company's 2007 ad campaign was unauthorized, "egregious and damaging," and went against his policy of not endorsing commercial products in America. From Variety:
The lawsuit complained of a billboard featuring a frame from "Annie Hall," a film that won Allen a best director Oscar. The image showed Allen dressed as a Hasidic Jew with a long beard and black hat and Yiddish text meaning "the holy rebbe." The words "American Apparel" also were on the billboard.
Allen's suit seeks at least $10 million in compensatory damages, plus what Variety refers to as "unspecified punitive damages."
Source: Variety
Woody Allen has filed a lawsuit against American Apparel, saying the company's 2007 ad campaign was unauthorized, "egregious and damaging," and went against his policy of not endorsing commercial products in America. From Variety:
The lawsuit complained of a billboard featuring a frame from "Annie Hall," a film that won Allen a best director Oscar. The image showed Allen dressed as a Hasidic Jew with a long beard and black hat and Yiddish text meaning "the holy rebbe." The words "American Apparel" also were on the billboard.
Allen's suit seeks at least $10 million in compensatory damages, plus what Variety refers to as "unspecified punitive damages."
Source: Variety
Related Items
| Celeb: | Woody Allen |
(1-20 of 24 posts) | Reply
on Apr 02 2008 05:55 AM Er, 10 million? I think one of the first cases of misapropriation of an individual was Tom Waits v Frito Lay company. He got $7 million initially over a radio commercial that used his song "step right up" and a voice-a-like. Later it was reduced to 1 million on appeal. The billboard would make me never want to get "American Apparel." What is it, some store for Hasidic Jews? WTH. (Reply to this) |
on Apr 02 2008 07:23 AM I could be wrong but I think American Apparel steals designs all the time. (Reply to this) |
on Apr 02 2008 09:38 AM In reply to this comment (#1665738) I wouldn't be surprised. Have you seen their clothes? Plainest thing ever, sold on sex appeal and trend. (As I sit in a pair of $70 AA jeans) (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 02 2008 09:54 AM american apparel is for people who want to look like they don't care... and are willing to overpay project that image. you want a shirt that looks like it came from a thrift store? how bout you go to a thrift store, and cut the cost by 90% in the process. two words come to mind when i think american ampparel: milquetoast and poser. go get em woody. (Reply to this) |
on Apr 02 2008 10:44 AM Yeah go WOODY! Also start making great movies again. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 02 2008 02:10 PM These designers are all lame. How can anyone justify over $100 for a pair of jeans? I went to GAP and Banana Republic trying to find a couple polo shirts and I ended up buying them at Target for $60 less, except a better fit and better quality. Our culture is pathetic sometimes. (Reply to this) |
on Apr 02 2008 02:55 PM AA is for hipsters who think they're changing the world by paying $30 for blank t-shirts. (Reply to this) |
on Apr 02 2008 03:15 PM Take em down!!!! (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 02 2008 04:36 PM In reply to this comment (#1666421) Even though I cant afford it, I most certainly can justify 100 dollars for a pair of jeans - at least from American Apparel. Their clothes are made by well-paid workers in America who have health care and vacation benifits instead of 3rd world kids in sweatshops. That is the reason their clothing costs as much as it does. The reason that crap you buy at Target only costs 10 bucks is because it was made by 8 year olds in Asia and sweatshop prisoners in Saipan who make pennies a day - if that. That is reason enough to pay extra for American Apparel... if you can afford it. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 02 2008 04:56 PM In reply to this comment (#1666633) in short, spend four times as much at AA so you can feel good about yourself. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 02 2008 05:19 PM I work at AA.... the ****ty thing is the fact that YOU have to wear all AA clothes while you work there that you have to pay for yourself... so basically your 1st paycheck is basically breaking you even... Go Woody~ F--- this store... im taking myself a good portion of clothes and quitting. (Reply to this) |
on Apr 02 2008 05:33 PM In reply to this comment (#1666633) Yes, most of those clothes are done by 8 year olds. But consider the alternative. Starve of hunger or get in the human trade exploitation in which you will be abused psycologically and may end up dead. So if you really care about those childrean you will buy at target, because at least your giving them an honest work that compared to their average national income they would be winning more. Thats what the socialist don't tell you. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 02 2008 06:51 PM I don't want to get into the ethics of AA, so I'll just say, "Go Woody!" (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 02 2008 08:32 PM Okay, you made a good point about the sweatshop workers. But remember, I was speaking about shopping at GAP and Banana Republic, who are well documented to use sweatshop labor. I don't really know a whole lot about American Apparel, but my general point was about the ridiculous amount of money people will pay for a brand name. (Reply to this) |
on Apr 03 2008 12:17 AM AA is just puffed up, expensive Fruit Of The Loom. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 03 2008 12:23 AM In reply to this comment (#1665934) Did you really use "milquetoast" in a sentence? Pop culture references really only work if they're from the past fifty years. (Reply to this) |
on Apr 03 2008 02:01 AM In reply to this comment (#1666673) So we keep the kids in sweat shops so they dont starve or get exploited,what a complete load of crap. Your the kind of person who thinks the Sun is responsible for climate change not humans. You stop buying the clothes because of the conditions these kids work in and the company has no choice but to improve condtions....but hey just as long as it's business as usual and you don't have to engage or change...just blame a socialist. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 03 2008 06:16 AM In reply to this comment (#1667170) If you really, really want to "improve the life of these children". You don't attack the company that helps them survive. If you don't want to see children working, fine. I don't want to see children working. I want to see them playing. But you won't do a dent if you boycott the company that is really giving them a chance,you attack their goverment for not doing their job and creating a hostile enviroment. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 03 2008 09:56 AM In reply to this comment (#1667145) get on the trolley, dum-dum. sure 'milquetoast' has been on the QT for a few decades, but it's a five dollar word that can still make a dame swoon. would i really use a term if it wasn't the cat's ***? now, i'm no greaser or hep cat, but i do know how to play it cool, charlie. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 03 2008 11:35 AM Both LostHighway and Vortex&Vertigo have good points. You should not buy from a place that exploits their workers and you should also attack the governments that keep these institutions running. However, American Apparel is really not that expensive as compared to most places that are similar in style. Their t-shirts are $12, not $30 and their v-neck shirts are $15. Sweatshirts there are also only like $40 or something. This is for guy clothes, but most things their are unisex. Of course it is more expensive than Target or Wal-mart, but so is everything else at any other store. They have the same prices at places like Urban Outfitters and that store does use sweatshop labor. I do support Woody because I hate AA ads. They are usually naked girls with see-through clothing on (that isn't from AA) looking very coked out. Also, there have been many sexual harassment suits filed against the owner of AA by the models. Seems kind of like an *** to me. (Reply to this) |
| You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register. |
Related Links
Other News
Related Articles
-
Why Can't Oscar Laugh?
(14)
-
Woody Allen Looks Back With EW
(0)
-
Charles H. Joffe: 1929-2008
(0)
- Woody Allen Sues American Apparel (24)
- AFI Announces Top 100 Movies of All Time ... Again (121)
- Critical Consensus: "Zorro" Off The Mark, "Saw II" A Little Rusty (4)
- Helen Hunt to Write, Direct, and Star in Longtime Pet Project (7)
Latest Features
- Exclusive: Oscar Nominee Jeff Bridges on Crazy Heart - The RT Interview (1)
- Five Facts About Micmacs (4)
- The 12 Craziest Movie Mental Patients (67)
- Five Facts About Solomon Kane (18)
- The Best and Worst Werewolf Transformations (68)
- Five Favorite Films With Precious' Gabby Sidibe (51)
- Five Favourite Films with Anika Noni Rose (20)
- Five Facts About Alice in Wonderland (79)
- 25 Movies So Bad They're Unmissable (135)
- The Future is Now! 10 Years of Movie Predictions (49)
What’s Hot On RT
Fresh Links
Featured
The Oscar After Parties
LIFE.com features a photo gallery of the biggest Oscar stars living it up after the show!
Best Oscar Moments
TIME takes us through some of the most memorable moments from the Academy Awards.
Trailer Breakdown: Eclipse
BuzzSugar breaks down the new Twilight teaser trailer and asks 5 burning questions.
Film/TV Food Cravings
AV Club staffers talk about the TV- and film-related food cravings they've given in to. Now we're hungry.
Bad Sci-Fi Movie Posters
Hollywood.com looks at the 2010 slate and wonders why Sci-Fi posters have become so boring.
Competitions
Become an RT Facebook Fan!
Follow along with all of our exclusive features, trailer updates, and industry news, directly on Facebook!
