American Apparel Requests Nude Pics of Woody's Wife

Woody Allen? Is he still ambulating in his potty chair?

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

Last!

You'd better be careful, you might get pawed.

Pasta for the Gumba baby. bada bling bada blah blah blah

no one cares about your remarks Gumba. boo-yah. pasta for the gumba baby

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.

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.

depends if my stalker continues to follow me. bada bling bada boom.

only if by stalker keeps following me.

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 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

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.

yawning, what a great relevation. LOL Gumba, why are you such a patsy. I bet you look like Tony Soprano. bada bling

?

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.

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

pawned? you mean pwned?

keep trying, you'll 'zing' me one day.

You will always be my favorite little troll.

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.

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, 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.

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?

Wow, I can't believe this story has 112 (113 now) comments posted.

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.

it helps when you have a stalker on you. LOL i have a gothamist stalker. booh-yah

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.

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

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.

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 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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Woody's Next Wife, Creepy Photo

http://celebritybabies.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/02/09/woodyallenmanzie.jpg

Thats a human Millhouse.

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?

You are wrong.

Stay on topic.

"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.

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.

This is your opinion.

Stay on topic.

Or, just a picture of Woody Allen with a kid.

Someone should make a "leave Woody alone" video.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

But his past is part of his image that he is suing so it is relevant.

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.

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.

how is your cousin, opps I mean wife? LOL Gumba baby

Real cute, kid. Does your mother know that you are on the internets?

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.

"I think all families are creepy in a way." — Diane Arbus

awesome. gross, but awesome.

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.

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.

You are wrong.

This is not factual.

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.

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.