Woody Allen Makes More Money Suing American Apparel Than Making Movies
Woody Allen found a new way to make ends meet other than that zany "sell movie tickets to people" scheme: He waited until American Apparel made an unauthorized billboard using his graven image, then sued the crap out of them for $10 million and settled for half the amount.
Allen's $5 million haul is better than the domestic box office gross of four of his last seven movies.
[American Apparel's Dov] Charney protested in his defence that the billboards had only been up for a week in a few streets of New York and Los Angeles. He insisted that he had no commercial ambitions in putting up the posters but rather had wanted to make a social comment about the similarity in the way that both he and Allen had been treated at the hands of the media.
Hmm. Only up for a week in New York and Los Angeles, huh? Sounds like the Cassandra's Dream theatrical run.
We kid because we love you, Wood-man. P-p-p-please don't send your lawyers after us, k?
Woody Allen reaches $5m settlement with head of American Apparel [Guardian, via The Awl]
(Photo:thedarkerside.to)
Post a comment
Comments:
He insisted that he had no commercial ambitions in putting up the posters...
Oh please. Is anyone buying that?
If the goal was compare yourself to Woody Allen, why did you put the name of the company on the billboard instead? OK, the billboard makes no sense as an ad but you can't claim it's anything else since the company name is on it.
@takes_so_little: I guess he thought no one would recognize him. You see that beard? It's very mysterious.
"He insisted that he had no commercial ambitions in putting up the posters but rather had wanted to make a social comment about the similarity in the way that both he and Allen had been treated at the hands of the media."
Righttt. I'm sure the decision to put his company's logo on the poster had nothing to do with "commercial ambitions."
Wow that was a dumb move on AA's part.
@Chris Glemaud: The Jewish stereotyped image, I think some people see him like that no matter what he wears.
If all you wanted to do was make a social statement, write an op ed in the paper. As soon as you buy a BILLBOARD, it's an ad.
A pox on both their houses.
Actually, this might be an ingenious method to employ an unwilling celebrity in your ad campaign. they get paid either way, and your ad gets more exposure than it would have without the scandal.
@bbagdan: You bet! I'm going to step into an American Apperel store for the first time as a result of Woody Allen suing and max out all of my credit cards.
@bbagdan: And of course legal counsel for both sides didn't make out so bad, either.
"These pretzels are making me thirsty."
@takes_so_little: It is a scene from Annie Hall, though, so it's not like it was made up out of whole cloth.
- Scumbag's company gets the beejezes sued out of them: Check
- Woody Allen is too busy to make movies: Check.
This is clearly a case where America wins.
Let's hope Woody sues Joe Francis next.
@mister_bojangles: Last I checked, ad campaigns had quite a lot to do with consumerism.
Also, thanks for adding to the discussion! Oh, wait, someone already made this exact same inane comment, nevermind.
Does anybody here read Hebrew? What does it say at the top of the billboard?
The article discusses the fact that Woody had the sex scandal re: Soon Yi, and AA had multiple sexual harassment suits filed against them, and that the photos were a commentary on the media's "tabloid scandal mongering."
However, when confronted with the lawsuit, Dov Charney told the media he was going to drag Woody's sex scandal before the judge, both as a way to deter the lawsuit, and to show that Woody's image isn't worth $10 million.
Nope. No irony there.
It is hebrew letters but the language is Yiddish
means The Holy Rabbi or The Saint Rabbi
btw guys it is nice you specifically mention his domestic gross, but he usually does x2-x5 of that in international gross.
@badhatharry: Something tells me neither the judge nor Woody Allen would have cared much. Everyone is more than aware of his reputation and it hasn't stopped him yet.
@Quake 'n' Shake: Yeah but Dov hasn't been active in directing the company for some time now. He got voted out a while back and has been employed in a more BTS role since.
Well, on the subject of Woody Allen, I think his movie with Larry David looks hilarious.
@na2rboy: What is the point of your comment?
If you don't think the article is about consumer news, DON'T READ IT.
Can someone who is fluent in Hebrew please translate what the billboars says, *sorry I'm a simple gentile, atheist really*
@mister_bojangles: to put in context the future story about AA having to lay off employees because the company lost money.
"If you don't think the article is about consumer news, DON'T READ IT."
@squinko: I hate it when people say stuff like that. It's totally pointless and seems geared to make one feel mighty and righteous. The commenter has a perfect right to question whether the post is Consumeristy. What's the problem of bringing that up?
@takes_so_little: I work in advertising/marketing/whoring and this strategy is called a few different names. The one i'm familiar with is called 'Get'. You do something you know is not right (use an image, song, video) and everyone 'gets' something. You get publicity, the copyright holder gets some settlement money (usually less than you would have had to pay them originally AND none of their pesky approvals of usage).
In this case, AA GOT bent over and done nasty. Couldn't have happened to nicer people. Way to go Woody!
What were they thinking? Implied celebrity endorsement is marketing quicksand, I think even the most novice ad rep would realize that. Unless they were intentionally trying to goad some cheap publicity. If that was the case, they should've just let Dov be himself, he's bound to stir up something idiotic without having to spend $10 mil to clean it up.
@Mr_Human: No, actually, the commenter doesn't have a perfect right to question whether the ost is on Consumerist. Notice he was disemvoweled?
If you have a problem with the content, you can e-mail the editors instead of making inane, useless comments.
@nakedscience: "have a perfect right to question whether the ost is on Consumerist."
Missing words and letters, yay. You catch my drift, I'm sure.
I totally side with Woody on this.
It's a matter of principles. If someone just stuck your image on a product you'd never endorse, and never got paid for said endorsement, you'd be irked. Especially if the image was taken out of context in reference to something you're not. Woody ain't no saint, and he's certainly not a rabbi.
I'm mixed on his movies. I have my favorites, and there's others I can't stand, but on the whole, he's a good film maker, and I look forward to this new one with Larry David. Perfect pairing, if you ask me.
The article makes it sound like it's Woody Allen being a jerk here, but didn't American Apparel use Allen's face in a big ol' billboard without asking him if it was okay? Isn't that kind of a dick move?
And this is not even taking into account that the ad makes no sense to begin with. If you need an Artist's Statement for an advertisement then you are doing it wrong. If they made it with "no commercial ambitions" why did they slap their company's name on it?
The whole thing is confusing.
@Mr_Human: The commenter also has every right not to read things that are not of interest to him/her. Some people like to seek out content that annoys them just to take pleasure in crowing about how annoyed they are with it. It's like that old joke:
"Doc, it hurts when I scratch my foot!"
Doc:"Quit scratching your foot."
@Mr_Human: nakedscience makes my point for me perfectly. If you don't want to read articles that aren't about a certain subject, why take the time to read them and then complain about it?
I'm not trying to be righteous and mighty and say that the poster can't bring it up. They should e-mail the editor instead (they'd probably get a better response, and not get disemvoweled). Sounding off about it in the comments just makes them sound whiny.
@squinko: And I'd say it's those asking, "WHY IS THIS HERE?!" trying to be righteous and mighty, trying to imply they know what is best for this blog.
@mister_bojangles: It was inane and added nothing whatsover to the post or discussion. You know how to e-mail editors, right?
@nakedscience: Maybe they forgot to refresh. I've been guilty of that: open the article, do something in another tab, and forget to refresh before commenting.
It's an excuse that doesn't work when there's hours between a duplicate comment and the original so I'm totally with you on the ones that show up a day later on page 3.
@nakedscience: Well, frankly, I don't think he should have been disemvoweled, and secondly I still find people who say "then don't read it" to be obnoxious. And I'll give up my vowels for a spin.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion. Yes I know how to email editors but there is a comment's section here also.
Just because you didn't agree or think my post had value, doesn't mean you should be so rude.
@Rectilinear Propagation: Yup. If he used his name, rather than his company's, he'd have a slightly wider fig leaf to stand behind. As is? Nope.
I don't get why they thought using a celebrity in an ad campaign without his knowlege/consent would be OK. I work in the public sector, so someone in private business, marketing, anything like that please explain why they thought they could guerrilla-recruit a celebrity spokesperson. Don't celebs usually get paid big bucks for this kind of thing?