« Marketers still searching for perfect worlds | Main | Mother horrified to see M&M licking himself »
Woody Allen beats down American Apparel
—Posted by David Kiefaber |
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Too bad they didn't show him wearing a tap panty.
Posted by: | Apr 1, 2008 12:00:44 PM
It's an ad from May 2007, hardly "latest".
Posted by: huh!? | Apr 1, 2008 2:29:27 PM
This is completely ridiculous. Anyone with a brain can see that this is a joke. A total parody. There's no way he can win since the right to parody public figures is covered by the First Amendment. At least he's back in the headlines though. He should probably be thanking American Apparel for the publicity.
Posted by: slater | Apr 1, 2008 4:53:56 PM
Parody is when you alter something slightly to spoof. This is using Woody's face as the pitch, punchline, and everything else.
He has a case.
Posted by: Steve | Apr 1, 2008 5:36:34 PM
I don't think he has a case. The use of the image combined with the obviously satirical yiddish (our holy leader, or something like that) drops this firmly in the parody camp. Plus, these ran for, like, three days last May. Why the lawsuit now? April fools? Movie to promote?
Posted by: Lefty | Apr 1, 2008 7:59:58 PM
Parody applies only to non-paid content meaning editorial. You can do parody in a tv show or a magazine or a book. You can't do it in an ad. If you put your logo on it and/or you paid to post it, then you are not working in the world of parody. You are working in the world of "you're going to get your ass sued."
And please remember that the First Amendment protects Free Speech. This is Paid Speech. We can't make false claims. We can't use a person's image whenever we want. These are corporations not individuals talking, and the government can pretty much step in whenever they choose on a corporation.
Posted by: thatguy | Apr 2, 2008 8:33:14 AM
But the company also runs billboards for social issues like immigration reform and I really don't view this image as an endorsement. Unless American Apparel has started to produce Yarmulkes.
Posted by: Veronica | Apr 2, 2008 3:54:35 PM
A couple thoughts:
I'm a fan of Woody Allen's movies, but I'm not sure I would have recognized him as depicted on the billboard.
I think if I had seen the billboard, I would have presumed that it WASN'T Woody Allen because, why the heck would he be endorsing a T-shirt company?
On the question of whether or not it is an effective ad, I would say that it is. The picture and Hebrew writing is arresting. If I had seen a billboard like that I most definitely would have wondered, "Which company's ad is that?"
From my viewpoint, the ad would have been successful if it had shown any man dressed as an orthodox jew.
The comment above by slater that a company is free to employ a public person's image is way off base. Instead, I'm left wondering at how incredibly dumb the decision makers at American Apparel are.
Did a PR company produce this ad? Wouldn't someone at that company know that this type of ad is entirely illegal? Doesn't American Apparel retain lawyers? How many adults associated with the company approved this ad? And why has the circumstance elevated to this level? They should have offered Mr. Allen a settlement.
Posted by: David | Apr 4, 2008 3:37:32 AM
Allen has a case for invasion of privacy and the right to publicity. They can't use his face to promote his product without consent.
Posted by: KYle | Apr 29, 2008 11:57:10 AM
