Report: Wife Scratched Tiger Woods' Face, Chased His SUV; Update: Police Unable To Interview Couple Today
GMA: Adam Lambert, No; Chris Brown, Yes
Two Doors Fall Off AirTrain At JFK
Senate Report: Bush Missed Chance To Catch Bin Laden
Bloomberg Spent $102 Million On Campaign
Woody Allen, Dov Charney and young women go together like legwarmers, metallic spandex tights and a deep v-neck tee, yet the battle between Woody Allen and American Apparel continues! After the company used the director's image (without permission) on one of their billboard campaigns, he filed a $10 million lawsuit saying it damaged his reputation. He called the company "sleazy" amongst other things, and the company retaliated noting that he already tarnished his image when he married his young stepdaughter, Soon-Yi Previn. WCBS now reports that "Lawyers for American Apparel have complained that Allen has refused to turn over much of the information they have demanded to prepare for trial. Among their demands were documents concerning any endorsement requests that were withdrawn after the sex scandal with Farrow and Previn became public." The request included nude photos Allen allegedly took of Soon-Yi Previn—but don't get your hopes up Charney, his lawyers say that request is not relevant to the case.
American Apparel Requests Nude Pics of Woody's Wife
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebookComments (157) [rss]
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
Tips
Newsmap
Contribute
Does Allen own the rights to that image or does the studio who produced and bankrolled it own those rights? I'm just trying to figure out why this isn't an open and shut case of copyright violation.
So can Madoff sue if someone uses his image stating it ruins his image? In fact Woody Allen is worst than Madoff. Woody Allen sexually abused his adopted children.
If Madoff made a movie in which he dressed up in a disguise, a picture of him in that disguise taken directly from the movie would/could be considered a violation of intellectual property. A picture of Madoff just walking down the street would/could be protected under the right to parody celebrities. Same thing with Woody Allen.
but if the image is useless and worthless than how can he sue for money. His image is worthless, would anyone buy anything with Madoff's face. What is puzzling is why AA would use his image when Woody touched children. Woody is a pedophile and his image is worthless.
That's a self-defeating argument.
If the image were worthless, AA wouldn't be using it to sell clothes.
These kinds of cases are what really needs 'tort reform'. AA's lawyers should be disbarred for making such ridiculous requests. Summary disbarment for this kind of shit would very quickly clean up the legal profession.
This is untrue.
You do realize that Allen was *acquitted* of all child abuse/molestation charges, right? So just because you believe he did these things you can't really go around just saying he did those things as, you know, you have no proof or anything. You might want to start dealing in facts. Fact: Allen was never found guilty of any type of inappropriate behavior in regards to his children. Yes, farrow won sole custody but Allen was never charged or convicted of any crime or wrong-doing.
I'm just a whatever AA employee, but the image wasn't really used to sell clothes. From what I gathered, it was used as a type of social commentary on stereotyping and judging. Think of the context in the scene from the movie.
His image is worthless, he is a pedophile. Woody knew Soon Li since she was seven, and the affair began when she was in high school'. Mia Farrow quickly filed molestation charges after she discovered Woody was with the younger children
Dylan was their adopted girl, and he began molesting her at six or younger. Seamus was Woody Allen's own biological son, and he allegedly even abused him. Another son, Moses Allen, had the court forbid Allen from visiting him. Ms. Farrow later filed to void Mr. Allen's 1991 adoption of Moses and Dylan. State Attorney Frank Maco wanted to arrest Allen for molestation. Allen hires a psychiatric team who set out to mentally destroy the 7 yr old Dylan. Maco refuses to prosecute fearing Dylan will be destroyed by Allen. Maco said "although he was dropping the case (to spare Dylan from trauma) there was no question that Dylan Farrow had been molested
And you could be sued by Woody Allen for libel based on this posting.
http://judicial-inc.biz/woody_allen_with_mia_farrow.htm
Woody the pedophile can't sue my ass, he is only interested in children. gross
And here I was wasting my Wednesday afternoon 'working'.
Had I known FelixtheCat was back I would have been here full force!
Stay classy, American Apparel.
American Apparel are just so gosh-darned indy and rebellious! I'm going to go ahead and sign off on a bulk shipment of street-cred for them, right after I'm done shopping for Buddy Holly glasses to go with my Ashton Kutcher haircut.
Ashton Kutcher?
He is right, regardless of his past.
I mean American Apparel makes a big deal that they don't exploit their workers that manufacture their clothing, but they completely exploit the people they hire for their advertising.
Hypocrisy is law in the 21st century.
PAY-PER-VIEW LIVE
APRIL 15, 2009, 9 PM
Woody Allen vs. Dov Charney
Greco-Roman Oil Wrestling Grudge Match to the DEATH!!!
Each weighing in at 115 pounds...this match is GUARANTEED GORE!!!
A pedophile's image is not worth 10 million, no way.
Wow, I didn't realize that if you have an affair with a minor, you're no longer protected under copyright law. I'm totally going to start distributing bootleg copies of all of Roman Polanski's films.
but that is his film not his image, totally different and if you support pedophiles than that is on you. I don't support sexual abuse of children. I am more disgusted by his sexual abuse of adopted children then American Apparel use of his image without permission. I guess that is how I am made.
Well, you've certainly missed the point of all of this. Great job on giving us your highly objective view on things.
you just don't get it? if someone is going to sue on basis that their image is ruin then they must have an untarnished image to begin with. A pedophile has no image that is worthy. Do you disagree with that or you support pedophiles?
Your first point is the only thing of value you've said today. You're right, since Allen is suing he does need to show that his image was tarnished in some way. He can't just say it, He has to prove damages.
However, please stop calling him a pedophile since that's an incredibly libelous accusation.
He is a pedophile, it is not libel. Why are you so protective of him? here is a site with some details of his behavior.
http://judicial-inc.biz/woody_allen_with_mia_farrow.htm
Oh...I didn't realize Mia Farrow said all of those things(and tabloids!). Well then, I retract everything I said. Clearly Mia Farrow wouldn't have any reason to lie and we all know that tabloids are thoroughly respectable sources of information. Sorry, but if this were all so cut and dry. Allen would have been arrested and charged. So Allen did all of these things but Farrow never wanted to press charges, she just wanted sole custody? Seems a little odd to me. If my boyfriend was molesting my kids I'd call the cops.
This is probably not worth the effort but it is libel. You are defaming him without any evidence that what you are saying is true. I realize that you believe what Mia Farrow says. Fine. But that doesn't make it true. You just can't go around spreading lies about people. You may find Allen and Soon-Yi's relationship unseemly but that doesn't make him guilty of pedophilia. The only objective facts that I can find(not coming from Mia Farrow) for a beginning date of their relationship is the early 1990's. Soon-Yi was an adult at that point.
"You just can't go around spreading lies about people."
From what I understand, though, libel also involves intent. You have to know they are lies and spread them to hurt the person. We know full well felixthecat is not very good at distinguishing truth from lies, so he or she would probably get off.
I guess you're right. As George Constanza said, "It's not a lie if you believe it." :)
it is all published on Mia Farrow's autobiography so how am I libel? what nonsense.
http://justjared.buzznet.com/headlines/2008/12/woody-allen-pablo-picasso.jpg
Picture of Woody holding his ahem future wife's hands.
Good Lord! Knowing what came later makes that picture incredibly disturbing.
LOL..that pictures is of Woody holding his and Soon-Yi's adoptive daughters hand. That's not Soon-Yi in the picture. Look at how old Woody looks..that's what he looks like now. And check out the date 12/2008. So, yeah, please get your facts straight.
http://celebritybabies.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/02/09/woodyallenmanzie.jpg
this picture is creepy.
OMG! His daughter is sitting on his lap! I can't believe it. Again, that picture is from a year ago so please don't try to pass that off as Soon-Yi. You might want to check out the dates before you link to these shocking pictures.
It's just a picture of him and his kid.
Why are you so bad at this 'internets' thing?
I thought American Apparel was going to go bankrupt soon? over expansion and selling the same shit every season does that to you.
A couple of things:
1. Soon-Yi was not ever his *step-daughter* as he and Mia Farrow were never married nor did they ever live together.
2. When did his *affair* with Soon-Yi begin? I thought it was (around) 1990, in which case Soon-Yi would have been 20.
It began when she was in high school and she was his adopted daughter.
No..she was not ever his adopted daughter.
2. Source for when relationship began, please?
http://judicial-inc.biz/woody_allen_with_mia_farrow.htm
On Jan. 13, 1992, just weeks after Mr. Allen had adopted two of Ms. Farrow's younger children, Ms. Farrow discovered six Polaroid photographs on a mantle at Mr. Allen's apartment. The pictures were of (as she describes them) ''a naked women with her legs spread wide apart.''
The woman was 13 yr old Soon-Yi, the daughter of Ms. Farrow. The pictures of the girl was 13 years old, That is why Mia Farrow received full custody of the children including their biological. Anyhow you can google all this information on you own. He is a pedophile.
You're quotes are from Mia Farrow's autobiography. I'm not entirely sure that's the most unbiased source.
But the pictures exist of an 13 year old girl. So based on those pictures and his own behavior, I believe Mia Farrow.
A CNN article:
http://www.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/9712/24/woody.weds/
Doesn't indicate that Soon-Yi was 13 in the pictures and also clearly states that Allen was cleared of all charges.
Cleared of charges sounds like that case is closed. (which makes it irrelevant to this new one)
Get yourself a fresh box of kleenex and go back to the basement you lowlife troll...
Huh???
Confused huh? I am just as confused by your continued defense of that piece of shit Woody Allen. Good thing you are nestled away on front of your computer...
Or what? You're going to beat up a woman? Okay, tough guy. And what am I defending Allen against? Someone slandering him? Alright, you got me, I'm a terrible person since I believe in dealing with the facts. Oh and I love the name-calling. Great sign of maturity! I'm taking my Kleenexs(??? what do women do with those? Cry, I guess) and going back to the basement now. : )
Okay so you see no problem with Allen marrying his ex girlfriend's daughter who he was a father figure to. I do. Difference of opinion... If it was your daughter maybe you would feel differently. Maybe not. Please get back to defending the honor of Mr Allen to felixthecat2
Look at the picture that felix posted. The legalities don't matter. If you are the father figure to a six year old and end up marrying her, you are twisted.
There is a big difference between *twisted* and illegal. A big age difference does not a pedophile make. There is absolutely no concrete evidence that this relationship was anything out of the ordinary until Soon-Yi was an adult. Just because it affects your sensibilities doesn't mean it's okay to slander someone. How about talking about how twisted Soon-Yi must be to get involved with her mom's boyfriend?
the picture of the girl was 13 year old, it was presented as evidence in court and woody allen was not cleared of any charges, he was not prosecuted.
Okay...where is a link to the photo of the 13 year old girl? And please don't link me to Farrow's autobiography.
Right, doesn't it seem odd to you that Farrow's boyfriend
was molesting and abusing both her children and their children and yet she never called the cops?
Sorry..not the link to the actual picture. I meant the link to where it was submitted as evidence.
Felix you are the King of Copy/Paste and Google searching shit that doesn't matter.
You can't use someone's picture with out consent.
This is why we have laws. Because everyone has (should) to abide by them.
Just because Americal Crapparel is a trendy hipster clothing line, doesn't make them immune to legal nuances.
You are a peasant who probably sleeps with his daughter produced by his marriage to his cousin. LOL
I will slap, chop the shit out of you and your grammar.
Allen said that Rosen,his ex-wife sued him because of a joke he made in an interview. Rosen had been sexually assaulted outside her apartment, and according to Allen, the newspapers reported that she "had been violated." In the interview, Allen said, "Knowing my ex-wife, it probably wasn't a moving violation." In a later interview on The Dick Cavett Show, Allen brought the incident up again where he repeated his comments and that the amount that he was being sued for was "$1 million".
Woody Allen has issues with sexuality even in his movies. And I can't post anymore but those pictures were found when she was 20. but they were taken when she was in high school.
Felix, if you're here commenting, who's running the Huffington Post?
I'm sorry, you're using some idea or dialogue presented in his movies as some sort of evidence against him? You know they're movies, right? That's not real life.
Also, you saying those pictures were of Soon-Yi at 13 is just not good enough. Please direct me to a link where I can see that pictures of a naked, 13 year-old Soon-Yi Previn were submitted as evidence in the custody hearing between Farrow and Allen and I'll be more than happy to believe what your saying. But for some reason you can't seem to do that.
lulz your request is awkward but i get what you are saying.
you can't expect more than feelings from this kid.
LOL...I don't mean I want to see the actual pictures. I want to see it written somewhere other than Farrow's autobiography that these pictures even exist.
You are wrong.
This is not factual.
awesome. gross, but awesome.
"I think all families are creepy in a way." — Diane Arbus
This is exactly was American Apparel wants... to change the topic of Woody Allens personal life and avoid the REAL topic of Copyright infringement, WHICH THEY ARE GUILTY OF...
I say sue AA for more than 10 million. As an artist who is very aware of my copyright issues, I find it offensive that AA feels they are above the law, and can turn this case into something that we expect from TMZ.
I hope AA goes bankrupt.
I agree with you. However, the question here isn't, "did they infringe on a copyright." But rather, was Allen's image hurt by the infringement. They've already been *punished* for using his image(they were made to remove the billboard). Allen's claiming damages though and it's up to him to prove that the copyright infringement actually caused him some harm. It isn't just a question of a law being violated(which is clear and I don't believe AA is trying to say otherwise). It's a question of whether they owe Allen anything for it.
agreed that AA shouldn't have used his image but the amount that Woody thinks his image is worth is ridiculous. And to want AA bankrupt of using his image is just as extreme.
But does you art have value, you can't sue if your image is worthless and AA's lawyer is doing their jobs. If Woody Allen is using based on his image ruin then he has to prove the damages and that his image was untarnished. Woody Alllen fails since he will be remembered as the man who took naked photos of his "stepdaughter" and married her. Anything can be called art but what is the value? And Woody Allen's image has no value.
Why don't you understand?!
Just because YOU FEEL like it has no worth, does not make it reality.
Feelings don't work in court. Facts do. Facts.
how is your cousin, opps I mean wife? LOL Gumba baby
Real cute, kid. Does your mother know that you are on the internets?
Valeriob, you peasant, the value of art is based on feelings and opinions. Silly Gumba,
You are off topic.
Your opinion of value is insane.
If I had a painting of a Horse Drawn Carraige it would be worthless to me, but maybe of some value to you.
If that same painting had the Horse being beaten to a pulp, it would be worth something to me, but little to you.
Do you see how perceptions change? Do you want a diagram?
Now lets talk about how happy those Horses are happily skipping about NYC. Yay! Rainbows!
Silly Gumba, I already explained that the value of Art is not based on Facts but emotions and opinions. Now go home to your cousin/wife and eat your pasta like a good Gumba.
I guess we'll see the value in court.
American Apparel's advertising is cheap and sleazy, and a clear rip-off of Terry Richardson's style. They have nothing original in their marketing or clothing line. The best they can do is profit off of controversy. Why else would they have used Woody Allen's image in the first place? This timeline was in the making in it's inception by American Apparel. I do hope they go bankrupt.
Let's see what AA actually brings into court and let's hear the arguments. American Apparel CAN NOT bring up Woody Allen's past, because it's irrelevant to this case. That's a fact. American Apparel has no case. They should just settle out of court, but they won't, you know why? Because this is planned FREE advertising for American Apparel.
But his past is part of his image that he is suing so it is relevant.
I'd love to agree with you but unfortunately his past is relevant in this case.
He's arguing that through his illegal association with AA they have damaged his reputation which has caused him to be financially damaged to the tune of $10 million.
They're arguing that in the past his reputation has been damaged by something seen by some/many just as *sleazy* as Allen sees their clothing store and he either a.) didn't experience any financial ill-effect or b.) was financially impacted but not to the degree of $10 million dollars.
Personally, and I'm sure this is clear by now :), I'd love for them to leave his past out of it but what they're doing makes total sense and, from a legal standpoint, is exactly what they should be doing if they don't want to just fork over $10 million.
I disagree. American Apparel can't argue that once a long time ago his reputation was damaged and therefore since it was damaged, it's somehow unable to be damaged again IN A DIFFERENT WAY. This isn't about his love life or family affairs. This is still about COPYRIGHT infringement and damages.
They made a mockery of him by using a picture of him as a rabbi out of context. Not only am I personally offended that AA seems careless about making fun of jewish people, but that they can divert the topic of this case to bring up his past.
They can argue it and it makes sense. They aren't trying to say his reputation can't be damaged again. They're saying that either a.) when his reputation was damaged in the past it wasn't to the *exorbitant* amount of $10 million or b.) when his reputation was damaged in the past it didn't affect his earning potential at all and therefore AA's billboard couldn't logically have had this affect.
This really isn't about copyright infringement. No one is saying they didn't infringe. Allen is claiming that infringement is going to hurt his ability to earn money and therefore should be compensated. They are arguing that *scandals* in his past have never hurt him before(or at least not to the degree of what he wants to be paid).
The burden is on Allen here to prove they damaged his image and it needs to be rectified. The only logical argument against him is to show that his own past, which is obviously colorful and is objectively viewed as occasionally scandalous, has never hurt his reputation.
There are real damages, which are based on factual numbers which is what you're talking about, and there there are implied damages, which are emotional, psychological and future potentials.
It will be up to the court to decide how negligent AA was in posting this out of context image of him as a Rabbi, and how it could have affected him. It will be interesting to see.
I'm referring to all damages. Allen has to show how this damaged him period. Psychologically, financially, etc. Just saying it will not be enough.
Future earnings are not implied here. They will argue that whatever movies he made after 1993(or whenever) made X amount of money. Therefore, this was the effect of the custody scandal. They will argue that he was still nominated for awards, etc. I understand you're saying his future earnings now but their argument will be that if the 1993 incident didn't effect him to this degree why would anyone think this billboard will have this effect. This is why his past IS relevant. Because they have the luxury of being sued by someone who has had his reputation *damaged* in the past. Therefore, they have some level of evidence available to them to make their case. They'd have a real nightmare on their hands if their were being sued by Zac Efron :)or somebody who has a relatively *clean* past.
The interesting thing is that Terry does occasionally do work in Japan for American Apparel, and clearly this campaign is directly deritive of Richardson's work - specifically for his SISLEY campaigns, so it makes it all the more baffling. One thing is for sure, however; and that is American Apparel is super sleezy. I have Matthew Swansons email address and am very tempted to leak it here.. just out of boredom, haha.
Someone should make a "leave Woody alone" video.
Woody's Next Wife, Creepy Photo
http://celebritybabies.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/02/09/woodyallenmanzie.jpg
Or, just a picture of Woody Allen with a kid.
Okay, now you're just being bizarre. Soon-Yi was NOT ever his daughter. This little girl is and the fact that you keep posting pictures of her is getting a little weird.
that is his adopted daughter and Soon-Yi was not his biological daughter but raised as his daughter since age six. Why are you so protective of this stepdaughter turn wife relationship? Don't you think it is perverse?
"That is his adoptive daughter."
Actually, she's just his daughter, adoption has nothing to do with it.
He and Farrow never lived together so I'm not sure how much *raising* he did of Soon-Yi. And to imply that his relationship to this little girl(who is his daughter) is the same as what his relationship must have been with his girlfriend's daughter seems like a pretty big reach to me.
Do I find it perverse? No. I guess I find it a little odd. But it's not for me to say what Allen does with his life and it doesn't affect me either way. I can't find anything to suggest that Soon-Yi has somehow been harmed by her relationship with Allen or that it wasn't completely consensual. And being that it seems like this is what they both wanted then it's not be place to judge or interfere.
Both of Woody and Soon-Yi's children are adopted and not biological, I don't understand why adoption has nothing to do with it.
Because she's his daughter. She's not his *adopted daughter*. She's his daughter. What difference does it make whether she's adopted or not? What does adoption have to do with it?
"Because she's his daughter. She's not his *adopted daughter*. She's his daughter. What difference does it make whether she's adopted or not? What does adoption have to do with it?:
EXACTLY Jaypea, read your comment, then your other comment, what does it matter that he and farrow were not married? Soon-Yi was still raised as their child. I don't want to argue every detail of woody's life but his marriage to Soon_Yi was quite twisted and the allegations of sexual abuse and Mia Farrow's sole custody proves to me that Woody has sexual issues that are perverse.
This is your opinion.
Stay on topic.
Okay..
1. I don't agree that Woody raised Soon-Yi as his daughter. He didn't even live with her. I can see the point your trying to make but I don't view Soon-Yi as Allen's *daughter*. I don't believe he ever filled that role for her. Soon-Yi was 10 when they started dating so let's not act like she was 4 years old when he met her.
2. The allegations from Farrow are just that: allegations. They prove nothing. I understand you believe her but your belief is just based on her word not any level of facts.
You are wrong.
Stay on topic.
Thats a human Millhouse.
The fact that you keep talking about his personal life and relationships is exactly what American Apparel would like you to do, and change the topic from Copyright Infringement and damages.
Please stay on topic.
The company apologized and took down the billboard after only a week so the issue has been resolved. the open issue is the value of this image which I believe to be zero based on his past behaviors.
You agreed that American Apparel was wrong to use his image. Why are you still pushing this load of crap about him molesting his kids?
Woody Allen doesn't need YOU to justify the amount he is suing for. Shut your face assclown.
You need help. Seriously.
Gumba, I need help? maybe the belt around you pot belly needs to be loosen to enable blood flow to your brain. Now go home to your cousin/wife and eat pasta like a good Gumba. booh-yah.
How is eating pasta an insult.
Staying on topic is proving to be very difficult for someone with your mental capacity.
Remember when you couldn't keep your mouth shut that one time and your account was restricted?
Are you really ready for FelixtheCat3?
Valeriob, I can't keep on topic, you came here for the sole purpose to annoy. read your own comment. And go home, unbuckle your belt, kiss your cousin/wife and eat pasta and relax. You are like a stalker now. I am not interested in you. You are appalling beyond word Gumba. Below is your comment booh-yah. I don't need stalkers.
And here I was wasting my Wednesday afternoon 'working'.
Had I known FelixtheCat was back I would have been here full force!
That is your opinion.
Wrong again, but entitled to it.
Stay on topic.
I disagree. American Apparel can't argue that once a long time ago his reputation was damaged and therefore since it was damaged, it's somehow unable to be damaged again IN A DIFFERENT WAY. This isn't about his love life or family affairs. This is still about COPYRIGHT infringement and damages.
They made a mockery of him by using a picture of him as a rabbi out of context. Not only am I personally offended that AA seems careless about making fun of jewish people, but that they can divert the topic of this case to bring up his past.
But how are they making fun of jewish people? Allen made the movie, they only used the image. Perhaps then it is Allen who makes fun of Jewish people?
It's completely out of context and used for advertising. What about THE LAW don't you understand?
Take some courses in COPYRIGHT before you post again and show how ignorant you are.
But how is it making fun of Jewish people, it was used as an ad for their clothing line. It had nothing to do with Jewish people. How is this about race now? This is way off topic
What the hell man.
Are you slow?
Woody Allen vs. American Apparel is the topic.
WOODY ALLEN vs AMERICAN APPAREL.
Are you a lawyer? So what makes you think you interpretation is correct. It needs to have value. If the work has no commercial value, the violation is mostly technical and is unlikely to result in legal action
The fact that you keep talking about his personal life and relationships is exactly what American Apparel would like you to do, and change the topic from Copyright Infringement and damages.
Please stay on topic.
Are you a lawyer? So what makes you think your interpretation is correct. It needs to have value. If the work has no commercial value, the violation is mostly technical and is unlikely to result in legal action.
It is people close-minded that makes this society the well that it is. Don't you get it. they did violate the copyright law technically. they removed the billboard after a week but the issue is value and value is based on public opinion. So it is relevant. what is irrelevant now is race. The ad had nothing to do with making fun of jewish people.
wtf?
no matter the details and semantics of whether Soon_Yi was underage, his adopted or step daughter, Woody Allen has an image of the man who married his stepdaughter and cheated on Mia Farrow. So his past is relevant since it is part of his image. If they had used his movies then it is a different matter but they use Woody Allen's face. And to me his face has no value and is quite unattractive and not worth even 1 million dollars. that was my point. But instead i have Gumba my stalker here and jaypea arguing over semantics about Mia Farrow not married to Woody Allen. Geez
LOL..who's arguing over the semantics of whether Allen and Farrow were married? No one. They weren't
Your first sentence is the problem. That is how YOU view Allen, not how everyone views him. Your whole argument is flawed by your refusal to see that not everyone agrees with you. Not everyone sees him as *the man who married his stepdaughter and cheated on Mia Farrow.* Some people don't define other people by one incident in their life. Some people realize that life is shades of gray. Some people don't judge other people the same way you do.
The lawsuit seeks at least $10 million in compensatory damages and unspecified punitive damages.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
You are a joke.
They AA lawyer are addressing this case on a legal basis and that is did this ad hurt the commercial value of this property and what is the commercial value. What in both tests Woody Allen fails in MY OPINION. So his past is relevant and the lawyers are doing their jobs quite well.
Wow, I can't believe this story has 112 (113 now) comments posted.
it helps when you have a stalker on you. LOL i have a gothamist stalker. booh-yah
Some people come to Gothamist to read interesting news and articles.
Others come to spread their personal hate and uneducated opinions.
LOL, this is from the stalker who came here in full force for me. LOL what a pasty.
The smart folks in San Francisco did the right thing by taking American Apparel to the line and banning them from opening a store in their neighborhood and infecting their culture lifestyle.
Bravo to San Francisco!
you have issues with American Apparel and you don't heed to your own words about staying within the topic. the topic isn't if you like their clothing or their stores. It is not their image but Woody Allen image in court and how much value and damage to that image. Geez. what nonsense.
Of course you completely ignore the value of the ad campaign in general.
Not to mention completely ignore the entire world of advertising and how it works.
I want to ask you a serious question. How educated are you. Honestly, how much education do you have?
Don't be shy, it's ok. Not everyone finishes high school.
Pasty, is is not the value of the ad campaign nitwit but the value of his image and the damage on that image used by his ad. you are too stupid to function and you don't even know it. too much pasta perhaps makes you too lazy to read. booh-yah Gumba
Who says Boo-yah?
Go troll one some other website.
Didn't I already tell you not to post here again?
Pasty, it is not the value of the ad campaign nitwit but the value of his image and the damage on that image used by his ad. you are too stupid to function and you don't even know it. too much pasta perhaps makes you too lazy to read. booh-yah Gumba, say hello to your kissing cousin wife. bada bling bada boo
You said American Apparel is in the wrong more than once.
Why do you keep fighting with yourself?
Stop reading Gothamist. You don't belong here. No one reads what you write. You are a joke.
Patsy, you read what I write, you came here in full force for me. Gumba, I not flattered by your stalking. I said Woody's image has no value. I didn't say AA didn't violate copyright laws. Read carefully Gumba. Bada Bling .... ( you know the rest LOL)
You are wrong again. (At least you're consistent)
The lawsuit seeks at least $10 million in compensatory damages and unspecified punitive damages.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
You are a joke.
Jebus H. Christ. Now all we need is "TheFacts" to come stumbling in and machine-gun post some ramble about how Woody Allen slit the throats of Sun-Yi's parents and we'll have a real party going on here.
I never read anywhere that he killed her parents, what is your source. I don't think he is a murderer but a sexual deviant. Most of his movies deal with sexual perversions.
haha. I can't write this shit.
Gumba, most of your comments were pawned by me and it is sad that you can't even detect sarcasm. LOL Bada Bing ... ( you know the rest LOL). And you are reaching out for help. how pathetic. Gumbas can't do it alone, they run in packs. I bet you look like Tony Soprano. LMFAO. Booh-yah
You will always be my favorite little troll.
pawned? you mean pwned?
keep trying, you'll 'zing' me one day.
The billboard doesn't look kinda farcical to anyone else? I thought it was pretty obvious. I get that it was an image from a film and I bet American Apparel does as well. Whatever you think about Woody too, the idea that he can call anyone "sleazy" with contempt is pretty funny too. He's not exactly squeaky clean.
This is the billboard in question (not the image on the post)
http://tinyurl.com/cbhzvs
yawning, what a great relevation. LOL Gumba, why are you such a patsy. I bet you look like Tony Soprano. bada bling
?
Good bye Stalker, heading to the gym, kisses to your cousin/wife. I pass on the pasta for now. I don't care for peasant food.
I will pray to God to forgive me for pawing my stalker. :(
hahahaha... kids.
you are calling me a kid, you are immature, you came here just for me i full force, think about it if you can. You are pathetic and have issues if you need to come here just for me. We never even met. How sad is that dude? it makes me feel a little sorry for you actually.
Kind of makes you want to 'pawn' me, or worse yet, 'paw' me?
Don't encourage 'it' by responding to 'it'. That only makes 'it' worse.
The above is one helluva sidebar.
Agreed. Judging from the number of comments this post has attracted, Gothamist will find a way to include a Woody Allen/Dov Charney story every day of week.
only if by stalker keeps following me.
depends if my stalker continues to follow me. bada bling bada boom.
well this wouldn't be that popular of a post if valeriob and felix would just get a room to work out the angst with their naughty bits.
Last!
You'd better be careful, you might get pawed.
no one cares about your remarks Gumba. boo-yah. pasta for the gumba baby
Pasta for the Gumba baby. bada bling bada blah blah blah
I imagine that when a person reaches a certain age, no matter who they are or think they think they are, they will do anything to keep thier name alive. (WHO he?)
youtube.com/arexar
Woody Allen? Is he still ambulating in his potty chair?