Films

9° London Hi 12°C / Lo 6°C

Take the money and run: Allen wins $5m for stolen image

By Guy Adams

Woody Allen arrives at court in New York to testify in his suit against the US clothing company American Apparel

REUTERS/Eric Thayer

Woody Allen arrives at court in New York to testify in his suit against the US clothing company American Apparel

Several million dollars richer, and with his reputation more or less intact, Woody Allen successfully reached a last-minute settlement in a bruising legal battle with one of America's most headline-prone high-street brands.

The legendary film director appeared on the steps of a lower Manhattan courthouse yesterday morning to announce that American Apparel had agreed to pay him $5m (£3.3m) in damages for the unauthorised use of his image on a billboard advertisement.

In return, Allen agreed to drop a copywright claim against the firm's founder Dov Charney, which was at the centre of a bitterly-fought legal soap-opera that threatened to rake over salacious details of his private life in open court.

The case had been due to go to trial hours later in what hungry New York tabloids dubbed the "Jewishest" battle the city's courts had ever seen.

"I am told the settlement [that] I am being paid is the largest reported amount ever paid under the New York 'right to privacy' law," Allen told reporters, in a prepared statement.

"It is of course possible by going through the trial a jury might have awarded me more money, but this is not how I make my living and $5 million is enough to discourage American Apparel or anyone else from ever trying such a thing again."

Allen's complaint against the company revolved around billboards erected in Hollywood and New York in 2007 which featured an image of him dressed as a Hasidic Jew, next to text in Yiddish that read "The Holy Rebbe."

Last May, the director sued, claiming that the unsanctioned use of the picture represented an illegal attempt by American Apparel to cash in on his image, which he seldom uses to promote commercial interests.

Allen, along with most legal experts, thought the $10m lawsuit was an open and shut case. But Charney had other ideas, describing the claim as "excessive" and defending the billboard by invoking his first amendment rights to freedom of speech.

In a move that sparked a long-running propaganda war, Charney protested that the image, taken from the Oscar-winning film Annie Hall, had only been erected in a few locations in the two cities.

He insisted that it had no commercial purpose, but was a social comment about the way he and Allen, 73, were portrayed by the media.

To support his case, Charney's legal team initially threatened to rake over Allen's private life, issuing subpoenas to former girlfriends and lovers to testify in court, and requesting intimate information about his family and personal finances.

The tactic last month prompted Allen accused Charney's firm of adopting a "scorched earth" approach, saying it represented a "despicable attempt to intimidate him" into dropping the lawsuit before it reached a public trial.

The allegation was gobbled-up by the media, who billed the trial as a "clash of the Titans" between two men who, in addition to their shared Jewish roots, have both been involved in very public sex scandals.

Allen famously endured a long PR battle with his former girlfriend of 12 years, Mia Farrow, after he began an affair with her adopted daughter Soon-Yi Previn. At the time, in the early 1990s, Allen was 56 and Previn 22. He had known her since the age of ten.

Charney, 40, who comes from Canada and founded American Apparel in the early 1990s, has been embroiled in a string of sexual harassment cases with former employees.

In defeat yesterday, he insisted the fundamentals of that case remained sound, but told reporters that he had been forced to settle by American Apparel's insurance company, which effectively "controlled the defence" in the case, and will foot the lion's share of the bill for damages.

With at least half a nod to the free publicity that the months-long controversy has generated, which may yet exceed the $5 million he has to pay, Charney insisted: "I'm not sorry for expressing myself."

"I have respect for Mr Allen [and] look forward to his next film? I hope to meet him on more friendly terms at a different point."

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

I hope Charney ends up bankrupt
[info]leonard_merryl wrote:
Monday, 18 May 2009 at 03:52 pm (UTC)
A vile, stinking exploitative scheister of a man.
Spelling
[info]kerrygold wrote:
Monday, 18 May 2009 at 04:17 pm (UTC)
Should that not be 'shyster' or 'scheisser'. I know what you mean though.
Re: Spelling
[info]vhawk1951 wrote:
Monday, 18 May 2009 at 04:43 pm (UTC)
I wish someone would depict me dressed as a rabbi, I could uses a few quid
I thought you said rabbit then i re-read it is rabbis no it is rabbi the padre
[info]famulla wrote:
Monday, 18 May 2009 at 06:53 pm (UTC)
Why few. Write to him. I know him. He is very kind and generous to all he knows. You try to find the driver of his car, you will be amazed. Once I repaired the puncture of the car. he gave me the car. You will not believe this but I still have this in the bookshelf of 4 inches.
I thank you
Firozali A.Mulla
Mr Nasty otherwise known as Woody Allen (or something)
[info]hartletts wrote:
Monday, 18 May 2009 at 10:15 pm (UTC)
I am surprised he was paid in dollars I am sure he would have preferred underage teenage girls.
Re: Mr Nasty otherwise known as Woody Allen (or something)
[info]ourmaninferney wrote:
Tuesday, 19 May 2009 at 12:03 am (UTC)
There is no indication that WA has ever done a Polanski.
Re: Mr Nasty otherwise known as Woody Allen (or something)
[info]rosiembanks wrote:
Tuesday, 19 May 2009 at 05:13 am (UTC)
No EVIDENCE, it is true, but INDICATIONS? Plenty of those about his tastes, if not his actions. His stepdaughter, the girl in Manhattan, others, plus those adult, imitation ditzy, cutesy young girls, Mia Farrow and Diane Keaton. By his real-life actions and his fictinal portrayals, Allen has, in approving and justifying the (successful, intelligent) middle-aged male's coupling with a very young girl, and a silly, babyish one to boot, done more harm to young girls and grown women than any actual child molester. And at least a lot of those have done time and suffered economically. Woody just gets praise and money for what he does.
Re: Mr Nasty otherwise known as Woody Allen (or something)
[info]ydef wrote:
Tuesday, 19 May 2009 at 08:52 am (UTC)
Wow. You sound rather obsessed with Woody and bitter because he spurned you badly when you attempted to come on to him. Get over it, you were never in his league.

Mia Farrow and Diane Keaton?!?!?! Pleaaaase. They were aged 35 and 24 respectively when they became involved with WA. Woody Allen is only 10 and 11 years older to each. That's NOTHING, and hardly anything out of he ordinary.

And why should Soon-Yi be considered his step-daughter when she never officially was adopted by WA and therefore technically was NOT his step daughter despite popular imagination. She was Farrow's step daughter. Nor did Farrow or WA ever marry. Get your facts straight. Soon-Yi was a fully consenting adult by the time they became involved. She was 22. Get familiar with the laws in the USA why don't you? 22 is well past adolescence and age of consent.

Get over yourself.
Re: Mr Nasty otherwise known as Woody Allen (or something)
[info]kuma2000 wrote:
Tuesday, 19 May 2009 at 09:06 am (UTC)
He didn't get the nickname Woody for nothing! So he likes young snatch, and sometimes young snatch likes him; he's never gonna dig a crone like you so get over it...
Re: Mr Nasty otherwise known as Woody Allen (or something)
[info]rosiembanks wrote:
Tuesday, 19 May 2009 at 09:47 am (UTC)
Neither of you has ever seen me, and you know nothing about me. Yet you respond to my comments with assumptions about me and aggressive, disgusting personal remarks. If you are old enough to type, the world expects you to be considerably more logical and civilised. Do you really think you hurt the other person with such remarks? You merely add to the clearly enormous number of people who already think you are infantile and disgusting--and who know that these traits must render you unsuccessful and bitter.

Do try joining those of us who don't consider growing up an option.
So cui bono?
[info]rosiembanks wrote:
Tuesday, 19 May 2009 at 05:06 am (UTC)
Jews are well known for being contributing the most generously to charity of all the religions, and surely Allen, with all his wealth, doesn't need to add a few million more shekels to his already considerable pile. So may we please know which charity will benefit from Allen's victory? Victims of child molestation, perhaps? Or should we make it specific and say victims of incest (real or relational)? That Soon-Yi! SHE got the best out-of-court settlement ever!
'right to privacy' law
[info]kuma2000 wrote:
Tuesday, 19 May 2009 at 09:04 am (UTC)
"To support his case, Charney's legal team initially threatened to rake over Allen's private life, issuing subpoenas to former girlfriends and lovers to testify in court, and requesting intimate information about his family and personal finances."

So if you get upset about someone breaching your right to privacy its okay for them to publically air details of who you are shagging and how much money you have got as defence. Not something that would encourage people to take action under this law!

Most popular

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date