Woody Violated By Dov Charney

According to The Wall Street Journal, Woody Allen filed a lawsuit Monday seeking more than $10 million from clothier American Apparel Inc. over unauthorized billboard and online advertisements featuring the actor and director dressed as a rabbi.
image courtesy of Curbed
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, alleges the Los Angeles clothing maker and retailer, without his permission, put up billboards in New York and in Hollywood, Calif., in May 2007 that featured an image of Mr. Allen, who is Jewish, dressed as a rabbi from one of his films.
The images also were displayed in advertising on American Apparel’s Web site and in sponsored advertisements on other Web sites, the complaint said.
The complaint said the unlawful use of Allen’s image for commercial advertising was “especially egregious and damaging because Allen does not commercially endorse any products in the United States of America.”

About David Burn

Co-founder and editor of AdPulp. I wrote my first ad for a political candidate when I was 17 years old. She won her race and I felt the seductive power of advertising for the first time. I worked for seven agencies in five states before launching my own practice in 2009. Today, I am head of brand strategy and creative at Bonehook in Portland, Oregon.


  1. Should of just put Duv in the rab outfit, it would make more sense.
    Or maybe Matisyahu would be into an endorsement deal.
    But then again you wouldn’t get the ink er pixels
    Any way I appreciate those who can poke fun at themselves, Duv for sure. Woody not so much.
    BTW American Apparels’s 50/25/25 track shirt is the most comfy shirt I have ever worn. More comfortable than wearing nothing at all.
    The above is not a paid endorsement (obviously you don’t get those at AA = just a fact.)

  2. missybev says:

    How can the Woodster even think this case has legs? The billboard is obviously a parody which is protected by the constitution. I’m sure the publicity won’t hurt his upcoming movie though.

  3. This is a clear cut case of commercialization which uses a depiction of a celebrity for commercial purposes without permission. Companies have to pay millions for such celebrity shots. American Apparel is extremely naive or stupid.

  4. I can’t help but think there presently exist more useful subjects toward which we should be directing our interest and our options. What number of journal pages are diminished with full-color portraits of various highly successful people, and just how much data transfer is destroyed on a daily basis by constant ramblings of hollywood groupies?