ROTTEN TOMATOES: Woody Allen Sues American Apparel Comments

Woody Allen Sues American Apparel

by Jeff Giles | April 02, 2008

Summary

Surprised to see Annie Hall-themed ads from American Apparel last year? You weren't the only one. Back to Article

(1-24 of 24 posts) | Reply

tomwaitsjr writes:
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)

Holly Jolly writes:
on Apr 02 2008 07:23 AM

I could be wrong but I think American Apparel steals designs all the time.

(Reply to this)

imbroco writes:
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)

dahluzz writes:
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)

jokerboy1991 writes:
on Apr 02 2008 10:44 AM

Yeah go WOODY! Also start making great movies again.

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
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)

DivineCC writes:
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)

Marktime writes:
on Apr 02 2008 03:15 PM

Take em down!!!!

(Reply to this)

Brad 3000 writes:
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)

look_how_he's_standin writes:
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)

Kollikodon writes:
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)

Vortex&Vertigo writes:
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)

theginsengtree writes:
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)

arendr writes:
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)

Young Turk writes:
on Apr 03 2008 12:17 AM

AA is just puffed up, expensive Fruit Of The Loom.

(Reply to this)

nyr148699 writes:
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)

Lost*Highway* writes:
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)

Vortex&Vertigo writes:
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)

dahluzz writes:
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)

xsincexalwaysx writes:
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)

qnetter writes:
on Apr 03 2008 12:13 PM

In reply to this comment (#1666646)
Um, no. Spend four times as much so your fellow Americans can continue to have jobs, so you in turn can continue to have a job, without dropping American workers' pay down to 20c an hour to "compete."

(Reply to this)

janem writes:
on Apr 06 2008 05:46 PM

The billboard was clearly a parody and was not intended as a sales campaign. I mean really who is going to buy clothes because Woody Allen does? Not the Market American Apparel hits. I'm sure American Apparel thought about the repercussions before hand, and if this case actually goes to court, it will show.

And for the comments about the clothes themselves, in this world there are "price levels" in business. If you're on the Walmart level thats fine, but there are people who are willing and able to spend more for something of better quality, and something that allows for people to make a decent living wage with full benefits, while working in an ethical working environment where their labor is not exploited. So if you want Walmart prices, no one's stopping you, just don't try and stop the people who actually care about QUALITY of their product as well as their workers and their ability to live comfortably. "Basics" or not, at least the clothes are made in an ethical environment.

Besides who says that every brand is for every person? Thats why the businesses utilize a little thing called "Demographics".

(Reply to this)

CH1 writes:
on Apr 07 2008 11:15 AM

Don't hate on the company that runs the largest apparel manufacture from within this country, while the rest of them go abroad and would rather see America hit rock bottom. American Apparel doesn't steal, they take basic garments and perfect the fit, quality and they DON'T stamp their logo everywhere. Where has Woody been anyway? AA was doing him a favor by putting him on that billboard. Him suing surely means he must has some new project coming up. It's all a PR stunk. Come on people, don't be ignorant.

(Reply to this)

Jesse F. writes:
on Apr 15 2009 08:55 AM

In reply to this comment (#1675046)
Where has Woody Allen been? Writing and directing Oscar nominated films, that's where. Vicky, Christina, Barcelona and Match Point were two great films.

The point is AA shouldn't be using someone's image for their ad campaigns without their consent. How else are you going to prevent them from doing that without suing them for a huge amount of money. Even if AA is willing to pay a ton of money to illegally use someone's image doesn't mean they should be a allowed to do so. The punishment has to be big enough to deter that kind of behavior, hence the $10 million asking price.

(Reply to this)

Related Links

Annie Hall

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links