Home
Regional Home Pages:
Québec Mexico Brazil United Kingdom Spain France Netherlands Germany Sweden Italy Austria Israel China Korea Japan Australia
Made in Downtown LA
T-shirts, sweatshop-free, wholesale t-shirts, American Apparel, Made in Los Angeles
A Statement from Dov Charney about the Woody Allen Case (5/18/09)
 
Posted by:  5/18/2009  07:31
Today the lawsuit filed against American Apparel by Woody Allen will settle whereby he will receive a 5 million dollar payment. The vast majority of this payment will be paid by our insurance carrier who is responsible for the decision to settle this case and has controlled the defense of this case since its inception. Naturally, there is some relief of not having to go through a trial but I also harbor a sense of remorse and sadness for not arguing an important issue regarding the First Amendment, particularly the ability of an individual or corporation to invoke the likeness of a public figure in a satiric and social statement.
 
For the record, I personally think we had a good case. As one of my lawyers, Adam Levin explained, "Common sense dictates that the billboard at issue here is 'not a simple advertisement.' As a matter of law, no commercial transaction is proposed: no merchandise is shown or described, and no price is quoted. Instead, the billboard contains an image of an Orthodox Jew in a black top hat - none of which can be purchased at American Apparel. And the writing on the poster is not the copy of a commercial advertisement, but Yiddish words identifying Allen as "The High Rabbi." Finally, even if the billboard is found to have the dual purpose of a commercial transaction and an expressive medium, First Amendment protection still attaches because the two elements are 'inextricably intertwined.' The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Hoffman v. Capital Cities/ABC...makes [it] abundantly clear that the speech at issue in this case is protected by the First Amendment. Any other conclusion inevitably would chill critical social and political commentary and debate."
 
In recent weeks, I have been unable to comment freely about the billboards as all of my communications had to be approved by the insurance company. At this point, since the case is settled, I am free to say what I have to say.
 
Below is a statement that I had been working on explaining my position on this case before it was settled and I am publishing now because I want people to know what my motivations and true feelings were.
 
___________________________________________________________
 
Few people know as well as Woody Allen how difficult it is to explain a joke without killing its humor. Ironically, I now find myself in the difficult position of having to make a similar explanation to Mr. Allen, a man who has long been one of my inspirations.
 
In the spring of 2007, my company American Apparel put up two billboards depicting an image of Woody Allen dressed as a Hasidic Jew, from the movie "Annie Hall," one in New York City and the other in Los Angeles. They were up for less than a week, and when Mr. Allen's representatives asked that we take them down, we did so immediately. Nonetheless, Mr. Allen subsequently filed a lawsuit against American Apparel, demanding $10 million for the unauthorized use of his image.
 
The image of Mr. Allen in the billboards was from a scene in the film in which the character he plays, Alvy Singer, is an uncomfortable guest at an Easter dinner hosted by the family of his Gentile girlfriend, Annie Hall. Alvy feels so out of place and hopelessly misunderstood at this dinner that Mr. Allen makes a joke of it and shows Alvy imagining himself as a Hasidic Jew.
 
Along the top of the billboard were the words "Der Haileker Rebbe," written in Hebrew letters. This is Yiddish for "the highest level, extra-holy Rabbi," of which there is only one in the worldwide Hasidic Jewish Lubavitcher community. In Catholic terms, but from a Lubavitcher perspective, it would be like referring to Woody Allen as the Pope. Naturally, this was intended as a satirical spoof and not to be taken literally. Posed as a riddle, the purpose of the text was to create a parallel between the sentiment of that moment in the film and what my company and I were experiencing at the time.
 
At the time of the billboards, my company and I were experiencing the media fallout resulting from a few sexual harassment lawsuits. There were false allegations such as that I had conducted a job interview in my underwear that were sensationalized and exaggerated to the point where my entire persona was vilified. Today, two years later, all the claims in the lawsuits have been completely disproven and yet at the time, some writers characterized me as a rapist and abuser of women, others asserted that I was a bad Jew, and some even stated that I was not fit to run my company. There are no words to express the frustration caused by these gross misperceptions, but this billboard was an attempt to at least make a joke about it.
 
It is ironic that I have to explain this to Woody Allen, when he has expressed similar frustrations in the past. More than a decade earlier, Woody Allen faced what Newsweek called a "bombardment of tabloid missiles and an outpouring of accusations and counter accusations." Responding to the allegation that he had molested one of his children, Allen explained to 60 Minutes in 1992 that "a gigantic industry has been built on a total non-event. And when I say a total non-event, I mean a total non event. It wasn't as if I tickled my daughter or something and much has been exaggerated. I am saying [I did] nothing at all....I don't think I can ever get my reputation back..." I related personally to this sentiment and expressed a similar one to the Los Angeles Business Journal, about a year and a half before the billboards went up, explaining to a reporter that my biggest fear was a "worry that I'm being misunderstood... in terms of how society perceives me. People may not understand my philosophy in business. It comes back to the creative process." My intention was to call upon people to see beyond media and lawsuit-inspired scandal, and to consider people for their true value and for their contribution to society.
 
I feel that the comments of a former friend of Woody Allen, Harvard professor, and famous civil rights lawyer Allan Dershowitz apply to this particular phenomenon: "Well let's remember, we have had presidents... from Jefferson, to Roosevelt, to Kennedy, to Clinton, who have been great presidents... I think we risk losing some of the best people who can run for public office by our obsessive focus on the private lives of public figures." I agree that the increasingly obsessive scrutinization of people's personal lives and their perceived social improprieties has tragically overshadowed the great work of too many artists, scientists, entertainers, entrepreneurs, athletes and politicians, including Woody Allen.
 
The billboards were designed to inspire dialogue. They were certainly never intended to sell clothes. (And they didn't. We recently hired a market-research company to determine the commercial impact, if any, of the billboards; they found they had no impact on anyone's decision to shop at our stores.) This was not the first time we used a billboard for something other than to promote our products. Before and since we've used them to express social messages--including, for example, our support of immigration reform.
 
I appreciate Woody Allen's work, but I also appreciate the First Amendment. Let's not forget that Woody Allen himself has referenced many public figures over the course of his long career, often for the purpose of parody, such as Fidel Castro in the movie Bananas. Even Morley Safer, in a 1972 60 Minutes profile of Woody Allen's rising film career, noticed how at home he was "satirizing Freud and Dostoyevsky." I feel that these social references and satires are protected by the First Amendment, as was the case when Larry Flynt used the image of Jerry Falwell, a case which eventually made the Supreme Court. In that case, the majority opinion clearly stated that: "At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern. The freedom to speak one's mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty--and thus a good unto itself--but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole. We have therefore been particularly vigilant to ensure that individual expressions of ideas remain free from governmentally imposed sanctions."
 
I have already apologized to Mr. Allen and have tried, through his lawyers, to explain to him the meaning behind the billboards. Although I am sorry that I am in conflict with Mr. Allen, I believe I had the right to express myself in the manner in which I did. Contrary to some articles that have been written about this case, I want to preserve Woody Allen's dignity as well as my own to the extent that is possible in a dispute of this kind.
 
In his deposition, Mr. Allen said that he had never heard of American Apparel or me prior to the billboard. I believe that if Mr. Allen became more familiar with the company, he might appreciate some aspects of American Apparel specifically our commitment to creativity.
 
In any case, I wish him well, no matter what happens with this case.
 
For further inquiries contact:
 
Marsha Brady
marsha@americanapparel.net
Creative Director
American Apparel
 
Adam Levin
(310) 312-3116
AXL@msk.com
Legal Spokesperson
American Apparel
New Comment
 
Who are you?
Name
E-Mail
 
 
Posted by: Stefan Schmidt 5/18/2009  08:57
Very well put. I'm sure Mr. Allen would not sue you again, now after knowing more about the backround of these posters.

Don't let anybody stop you. Freedom is all we have.
 
Posted by: Angel 5/18/2009  10:06
You can always use my image...I'll not sue you, I promise
 
Posted by: Mike 5/18/2009  10:31
This guy Charney would sue someone in 10 seconds if someone had a likeness of him.

So stop the apology BS, and don't be a hypocrite, and stick to selling SHMATTAs
 
Posted by: Katie 5/18/2009  10:44
Yeah, satire is one thing, and we "get it", but using the image of a person without thier consent for the purposes of making money is another. That is what an ad is designed to do---make money, I almost guarantee you weren't throwing all that billboard money at purely making a statment or a joke. Really, you should know better. You just thought you could get away with it because Mr Allen's reputation is on shaky ground after his scandal.
 
Posted by: David in NYC 5/18/2009  10:52
What a crock!

You stole Woody's image and likeness, period. You lied about the reasons (yeah, right -- it's not to sell clothes). You bring up a totally nonsensical "First Amendment" claim (which part of the government is stifling your "free speech"?). You insulted the Hasidic community by associating them with products that I am sure they find offensive.

You are certainly within your rights to speak your mind. You are NOT within your rights to steal anything from anyone, which is what you are trying to justify.
 
Posted by: wayne  5/18/2009  11:42
I'm going to make an order today as a show of solidarity. Why a week's worth of undesired exposure is worth $5 million is beyond me. Allen's reaction does more to harm his reputation than a tribute to his image will ever do.
 
Posted by: David Ray 5/18/2009  12:03
I'm am glad this is all over with but I believe it is unfair, I feel sorry for Aa and Dov. I think I'll stop by my local store to walk around and take all the imagery in and have a moment of silence.
 
Posted by: Angela Berry 5/18/2009  13:31
"The billboards were designed to inspire dialogue. They were certainly never intended to sell clothes." Then why is your company name on the billboard? If this advertisement was not meant to ultimately connect people with your store, its' clothing and a cash transaction then I don't see why there is a need to brand your name across the advertisement. I understand why American Apparel would want to disassociate themselves from other brand names (particularly your policies and practices), but the money you paid for these billboard advertisements are intended to ultimately bring people into your stores to buy clothing. A brand holds with it a broader social context - your brand name brings its own positive and negative associates for different people. It seems unlikely that American Apparel would have paid money to put Woody Allen on a billboard without the company name somewhere on the surface. The text on the billboard makes its purpose clear. After seeing a Woody Allen movie I can't look up the nearest location to one of his homes, go there, browse through his verbal/non-verbal thoughts, hand him money and take them home to wear. There is a tremendous difference and I imagine that Woody Allen would not have reacted the same way if his image was borrowed in another context. It may be possible that American Apparel overestimated the percent of the population who would be aware of the scandal surrounding the company and be able to draw parallels to Woody Allen's personal life and his performance in Annie Hall.
 
Posted by: James 5/18/2009  14:09
Keep doing this: This was not the first time we used a billboard for something other than to promote our products. Before and since we've used them to express social messages--including, for example, our support of immigration reform.
 
Posted by: BS 5/18/2009  14:49
Wow, you are full of yourself. You put up a billboard of a well known person from a scene in a well known movie with Hebrew writing and that's it? How would people viewing this make the connection to your personal life (and why would they care)? He probably sued you for being so audacious to usurp his movie so people would talk about you.

Creativity is not reproducing a still from someone else's movie. This is not satire because you were not satirizing the subject - you were making some esoteric claim to similarity. As for 'social references', once again, your billboard was a reproduction. It did not appear in any way to be a social reference because there was no context (for the vast majority of people who do not know or care who you are). So your examples, Larry Flynt and Woody Allen, are not analogous to your case.

Just admit it - you and your team were really high when you came up with this.
 
Posted by: Monica Laborin 5/18/2009  14:59
Dov,

Even though I may not have agreed with some of your marketing tactics or ideas in the past, I have always respected how you have remained true to your creative self and, though controversial, brilliant marketing campaign. Stemming from the city of LA and the fashion industry I have seen American Apparel grow into much more than just an apparel manufacturer but an outspoken “rebelde” business that is sure to become an icon of our generation.

Before Mr. Allen acted more like a Jew (sorry but it's appropriate in this case) and got into a $5 million dollar tiffy, he should have taken the time to research American Apparel and really see what they are all about it. He might have realized that being part of the billboard and have a different generation than his exchange ideas of the meaning and/or purpose of the billboard would have been one of his best undertakings that he has been a part of in a long time.

He might have been able to redeem himself with our generation for his impulsive mistakes he has made in the past and been a part of something extraordinary….the power of the first amendment and how it continues to create dialogue. Obviously he will never learn and he'd rather us continue to remember him as a dirty old man.

But don't worry Dov, $5 million dollars was a small price to pay to prove to the world just how overrated and Mr. Allen truly is. Deep down inside we all know he is a fan of your ads.
 
Posted by: Peter 5/18/2009  15:49
I whole heartedly agree with this argument. However, I don't understand how no one from AA saw this lawsuit coming as so many Hollywood figures have convulsive reactions to seeing their face on billboards, magazines without their "authorization." They always call their lawyers first and demand settlements. It's almost a sick way to generate press and get some fast cash. I feel sorry for AA and I just see Woody Allen as another lame Hollywood figure that's actually more interested in fame, attention and money, than art. He can go fuck himself.
 
Posted by: 420bro 5/18/2009  16:18
Gee whiz, do we have to actually follow the rules and the laws too?
 
Posted by: Angry 5/18/2009  17:20
I'm sorry, but Woody Allen in my opinion is a confused, perverted, self centered freak. I've already spent too much time by writing and reading this shocking and saddening chain of events...
 
Posted by: ryan 5/18/2009  17:50
Who the fuck is Woody Allen?
 
Posted by: marc 5/18/2009  17:51
Reminds me of Stussy suing Freshjive for unauthorized use of their logo back in 2005... It's just completely absurd and two faced.
 
Posted by: sam-R 5/18/2009  19:23
Sorry Dov, I just don't buy this "free speech" that you are pushing here. You knowingly used the image of a celebrity to create awareness of your product. Your "parody" excuse is way too obscure, since so few people read Hebrew. For 99.5% of the people who see the billboard, you associated AA with Allen as if to suggest he endorsed your clothing (which I love, by the way. I am wearing two items at the moment - and exclusively use AA on shirts my company manufactures). I think AA decided that a lawsuit was cheap advertising, and took a chance on it. Blah, more B.S. You deserved to lose this one. Sam-r @ sam-r.com
 
Posted by: Biller 5/18/2009  21:14
Woody Allen sure did 'take the money and run.' A lot of companies would have signed a confidentiality agreement and put out a 3 sentence statement saying "We have come to resolution that all parties are pleased will. Thank you...." It's brave of Dov to put himself out on the line and explain himself.

I support it.
 
Posted by: Jason 5/19/2009  07:08
Is it true you considered discussing aspects of Mr Allen's private life in the court case?

That really makes me want to buy your clothes.
 
Posted by: nathan 5/19/2009  07:39
It's very disappointing from Woody Allen that he didn't take the time to investigate the company further and try to understand its intended message.
If anything, he should have felt proud to be able to participate in the AA movement - and at least, to see that someone such as Dov is ready to replace him as a leading creative mind.
 
Posted by: jk 5/19/2009  09:50
Mr. Allen probably had little choice but to sue, or else lose control over how his published images are used. That's not to say that I agree he should have won, but that's the way the law works.
 
Posted by: alicia 5/19/2009  10:16
ehh, woody allen's just gettin old and flustered. I'm sure if he could find his glasses and read your statement, he'd wanna get a drink with you. dov, you and woody allen have too much in common for him to be 5 million dollars mad. actually, now that I think of it, if you were woody allen, you'd do the same thing, you're all weasely fucks.
 
Posted by: Sarah 5/19/2009  10:26
I think that it is important to note that the image used was from a copyrighted film and that is where the issue stems from. I would agree whole-heartedly with you if the image in question were one that was simply a photo of him used without his permission. The issue is being twisted to using an image of Woody Allen without permission when the issue is actually using an image from "Annie Hall" without permission.
 
Posted by: MIKE 5/19/2009  10:26
He wanted 10 billion?! I didn't realize what sort of ego we were dealing with before. He should be ashamed. I understand protecting one's image, but that is just absurd.
 
Posted by: Rob 5/19/2009  10:36
"It's very disappointing from Woody Allen that he didn't take the time to investigate the company further..."
Of course, it's also disappointing that the company didn't take the time to contact Woody Allen and investigate his willingness to allow his image to be used to support Dov Charney's cause.

"Why a week's worth of undesired exposure is worth $5 million is beyond me."
If your image had never been used to advertise in the US market before, you would be able to offer your image exclusively to whomever you chose; if instead someone had used your image, even for a week, your exclusivity is gone.

As to whether or not this was an advertisement - it was a billboard. Billboards are used to advertise. If this image had appeared in an a show at a gallery, which show was sponsored by American Apparel, that might be a different story. Then we might have a discussion about the tension between the right to free speech and the right to privacy. As it is, we have a court case about the ways in which it is legal to exploit a personality.
 
Posted by: Dirty Butt 5/19/2009  11:05
Mr. Allen is a moron consumed by fear. American Apparel is a progressive CREATIVE & FEARLESS company that is changing the way we think.
 
Posted by: Phillip Franklin 5/19/2009  11:38
You have presented a totally different perspective from what has appeared in the press. Prior to yesterday I had never heard of American Apparel nor this case involving the image of Woody Allen. In your statement you presented what I would call a good defense in terms of fair use for First Amendment arguments.

However like you said .... this was some kind of joke in which most people could not nor did not understand. So when you have to describe it, it looses all meaning. And I think that is exactly what happened in the media. They simply failed to see the connection. And for some reason they saw it as a media stunt to attract attention to your brand by using this rather odd image of Woody Allen from a movie which might be only understood by movie historians or Woody Allen fans. Simply stated it was an awkward stretch. And in the end it was a gamble that failed.

Keep up the good work on immigration reform and work towards keeping the clothing manufacturing business as part of the American economy. That is what you have done best. Forget Woody Allen. He hasn't been that significant since his stand up days in the 1960's.
 
Posted by: Russell 5/19/2009  12:51
Regardless of the purpose of the billboard. Instead of Woody Allen, let's use Julia Roberts picture without her permission. They would probably sue also. Bad move to use someones likeness without permission.
 
Posted by: David 5/20/2009  09:24
Dear Ms. Brady and Mr. Levin,
I read some of the press regarding the Woody Allen case that Mr. Charney was unfortunately involved in. Reports in the NY Times directed readers to Mr. Charney's defense statement on your web site. I appreciate hearing all sides of a story, and it is refreshing that you even solicit comments from interested readers. A major part of his defense is discussions of American Apparel's free expression protected under the first ammendment, and its history of using billboards to promote important social issues which is what Mr. Charney was trying to do with the Woody Allen image.

Isn't it odd that you promote freedom of expression, and yet the only 15 comments you print from readers are in defense of Mr. Charney? Most are personal attacks on Mr. Allen, and one is borderline anti-semitic. My comment, which you chose not to print, disagreed with Mr. Charney's defense. Mr. Charney's defense that this was just a joke that was misunderstood is totally irrelevant. He quite simply used a trademarked image on a public billboard without the permission of the owner of that image. The case that Mr. Levin cites (Hoffman vs. Capital Cities) does not involve a public billboard, but a magazine which promoted the article as a display of public hollywood figures. To my knowledge, free speech does not protect the use of a trademarked image in a venue that is not generally used as public satire or opinion, like a magazine, but one that is used for advertising, like a billboard. Just as importantly, free speech should be supported by American Apparel by publishing opinions on its website that it may not not agree with as you only asked for comments, not necessarily comments which agree with Mr. Charney. By only printing those that whose major points are personal attacks on Mr. Allen, which essentially has nothing to do with this case, is a very poor reflection of your company.


David Gleaner
 
Posted by: Ryan 5/20/2009  09:47
David -

Just to respond to your point, the protection of the First Amendment “looks beyond written or spoken words as mediums of expression” and protects other modes of communicating ideas as well. See Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U.S. 557, 569 (1995). These modes include visual arts, such as photography and film. See Berry v. City of New York, 97 F.3d 689, 695 (2d Cir. 1996) (stating that “[v]isual art is as wide ranging in its depiction of ideas, concepts and emotions as any book, treatise, pamphlet or other writing, and is similarly entitled to full First Amendment protection.”). Case law makes clear that “First Amendment doctrine does not disfavor nontraditional media of expression.” Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc., 25 Cal.4th 387, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 126, 21 P.3d 797, 804 (2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1078, 122 S.Ct. 806, 151 L.Ed.2d 692 (2002).

In other words, a billboard might not be what you typically think of as an expressive medium but the law makes no real distinction.
 
Posted by: Misha 5/20/2009  10:49
You're a commercial company selling clothes. I don't get the parallel with Woody Allen's films parodying Freud and Dostoyevsky. He's hardly trying to flog products on the back of those jokes is he. However refined your argument is, you can't just use someone's face/character and stick your logo all over it. Otherwise, what do your models sign model-releases for?

It's a poor argument and an even worst joke.
 
Posted by: Ryan (AA Employee) 5/20/2009  11:32
@Mike

Mike actually in the months leading up to the billboard fake American Apparel ads with Dov's face on them were put up in the Lower East Side of New York City and Echo Park in Los Angeles, the same neighborhoods that the billboards later went up in. In a way, the billboard was Dov's way of responding and joking back to the people who hung them.

Consider the fact that when a different ad spoofer launched a very successful campaign in New York City featuring American Apparel's logo, the company didn't sue. Instead, we turned them into a collage that ran in Vice Magazine.
 
Posted by: Ryan (AA Employee) 5/20/2009  11:36
@David in NYC

Adam Levin who is quoted in the top of the statement said it best. American Apparel doesn't sell Hasidic garments, it sells cotton basics. Just because a clothing company pays for a billboard doesn't mean it is an advertisement for clothing.

Humor and satire are very much embedded in the Jewish culture. Had the case gone to trial, the company had witness who is a Rabbi (also named Dov) who would have spoken to that. He was not offended, so what gives?
 
Posted by: Ryan (AA Employee) 5/20/2009  11:40
@BS

Actually the still used in the billboard was a photograph of an image paused on a television. It had also been manipulated in photoshop to alter the colors. What you're arguing is not a matter of law but of taste - in our opinion, quite a lot of work and thought went into the billboard, enough to make it its own artistic statement.

We're sorry you disagree. I hope you'll admit that intention - that we never purposely stole anyone's image and thought we were on 1st Amendment grounds - is important.
 
Posted by: Ryan (AA Employee) 5/20/2009  11:42
@Jason

No. American Apparel was NEVER going to call Woody Allen's family as witnesses in the trial. Hopefully this will be of some comfort - Woody and Dov and a few American Apparel employees who were going to be witnesses were all deposed months before the trial so all the lawyers could go over the information as the prepped for the courtroom. Soon Yi and Mia Farrow on the other hand, were never deposed. Not ever. This is because the company had no plans for them to appear at the trial.
 
Posted by: Ryan (AA Employee) 5/20/2009  12:26
@Rob and Misha

When a model's image is used for purely commercial purposes, a model release is appropriate and obtained. However, when an individual's image is used for satire, parody or other non-commercial purposes -- i.e., a purpose other than to sell merchandise -- important First Amendment rights come into play which permit the use without consent. This point was made by courts in cases involving the image of golfer Tiger Woods (used in a painting without his consent) and actor Dustin Hoffman (used in a magazine without his consent).
 
Posted by: Sam-R 5/20/2009  19:25
Sorry Dov, I just don't buy this "free speech" that you are pushing here. You knowingly used the image of a celebrity to create awareness of your product. Your "parody" excuse is way too obscure, since so few people read Hebrew. For 99.5% of the people who see the billboard, you associated AA with Allen as if to suggest he endorsed your clothing (which I love, by the way. I am wearing two items at the moment - and exclusively use AA on shirts my company manufactures). I think AA decided that a lawsuit was cheap advertising, and took a chance on it. Blah, more B.S. You deserved to lose this one. Sam-r
 
Posted by: Joey 5/21/2009  09:49
Ryan,

It's your job to say that AA was blissfully ignorant of its misinterpretation of the First Amendment, just as it is Woody Allen's job to wield some control of his public image. In the end, AA gets its publicity, and Mr. Allen gets $5M--not a lot relative to most advertising budgets. I'd say AA won, taken all around.

I still don't understand the intent behind throwing up a still of Woody Allen, some Hebrew text, and the American Apparel logo, even after reading all the tedious rationalizations.

Just make the t-shirts. You're very good at it. Trawling for publicity doesn't become anyone.
 
Posted by: Ryan (AA Employee) 5/21/2009  10:17
@Sam

I'm curious as to why you think Dov knowingly did that? Why would he have chosen Woody Allen of all people? And do you really think that this helped the company? The surveys done by the lawyers suggests the opposite.
 
Posted by: BurgerMEAT 5/21/2009  16:13
5 mill??! Thats thee most expensive inside joke of all time.
 
Posted by: Sam-r 5/25/2009  04:44
@Ryan. The First Amendment's purpose was to prevent the suppression of dissent and criticism of the government. Good purpose. Hiding behind it to use a celebrity's image against his will is a B.S. interpretation of the 1st. But certainly your right to try (and settle out of court).

Why are you asking *me* why Dov chose Woody? He says above that he's a fan of Woody, and he had some hair-brain belief that he was being witty by doing this.

I will keep wearing the clothing, because of the GOOD that AA does for workers, environment, etc. But this whole thing with Woody was dumb, and Dov should just admit it was dumb and he was wrong. Sam-r
 
Posted by: Apa Ap 5/30/2009  09:00
Seriously, you are not an artist. You are a COMPANY! There is a huge differens, don't ignore that simple fact...
 
Posted by: SL 6/02/2009  07:42
Did Apple obtain the rights to use celebrity images before they launched their "Think Different" campaign? Of course.

Still, love the clothes.