Sources: Men Arrested Trying To Repaint Bedford Bike Lane
Video: Sad Subway Rant
Call to Ban Carriage Horses, Close Stable
VIDEO: Cycling Activists Repainting Bedford Ave. Bike Lane
Oh D'Oh They Didn't! TSA Posts Airport Screening Manual On Web
American Apparel's Dov Charney has finally broken his silence! He posted this very heartfelt, deep (v-neck) statement regarding the Woody Allen lawsuit to clear up any misconceptions:
I have deep respect for Mr. Allen who is a source of inspiration to me. The billboards and images from the Annie Hall movie were intended to be a parody/social statement and comedic satire to provoke discussion and public discourse about the baseless claims that had been made against American Apparel and myself, society's reaction to lawsuits that delve into an individual's private sexual life and the media's sensationalism of such matters.Of course, using Hustler as an example when you're trying to prove you aren't a barely legal loving perv isn't exactly the way to go (nor is flooding the internet with images like the above), but we do agree with this whole First Amendment thing. However, is it really possible that Mr. Charney was using Woody Allen as a way to draw parallels to his own public image, and not to, like, sell things? It's sort of an outdated comparison, and Charney's mesh tanks aren't exactly on par with cinematic classics like Annie Hall. What do you think?
The false media reportage is an obfuscation of the key issue in the case, which is whether the use of an image from the film Annie Hall, depicting Mr. Allen as the character Alvi Singer, for purposes of evoking a societal discussion about these issues is protected by the First Amendment.
In Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, The Supreme Court of the United States unanimously proclaimed: "At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern. The freedom to speak one's mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty - and thus a good unto itself - but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole. We have therefore been particularly vigilant to ensure that individual expressions of ideas remain free from governmentally imposed sanctions."
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
So, is this going to be like the sequel to The People Vs. Larry Flynt?
using someone's image for commercial gain is not a 1st amendment issue.
the skit on saturday night live about him was the funniest thing ever. find it if you can. sooooooo funny.
http://jezebel.com/5052969/american-apparels-dov-charney-explains-it-all-for-you-on-snl
To begin with, the guy should take the cork out of his ass and get a better writer than he is using for his press releases. A sophomore phys ed major at Miami Cosmetology School for Senior Citizens should not be writing his script.
Then again I see the connection that they both share. Virility. So they should just kiss and make up.
Let me know at what point I'm supposed to give a shit about this guy Charney (who I never heard of) or American Apparel which I have vaguely heard of. OK, so I gather that their ads are risqué and show young women in states of undress. If that's the case then let me know at what point I'm supposed to give a shit.
The Hustler v. Falwell precedent doesn't have anything to do with this case. Charney owns a store, not a magazine, and he used Allen's likeness to sell something Allen had not endorsed, whereas Flynt used Falwell purely to make fun of him.
There are all sorts of limitations on the First Amendment when it comes to commerce, i.e. you can't claim a product does something that it doesn't do, and you can't use a person's image to sell something if he doesn't give you permission.
Allen's actual claims Lanham Act and Civil Rights raise the specter of a First Amendment issue but Hustler doesn't apply (this of course is assuming that AAI's actions are classified as expression which is a reach to begin with).
Hustler doesn't apply because it is about IIED for publications. Lanham Act 43(a) is about intellectual property-type rights and §50 of NYCRL is similar. Both are content neutral and should survive. If the claim by AAI is that Allen is somehow violating their First Amendment rights, it's ridiculous because he's not an arm of the state. If it is that NY Law & Lanham Act violate it, they still probably fail on O'Brien grounds.
I would absolutely positively welcome the opportunity to fist fight this glorified nerd. The thought of beating the shit out of him with my fists is erection inducing.
LMAO
Similarly, that Hustler reference has nothign to do with photo rights for financial gain. Very bad example.
Also, when you say "...we do agree with this whole First Amendment thing," does that mean that this is Gothamist's official stance on the matter?
Quick question. If you use an individual in your ad that looks like a celebrity, without direct reference to that individual are you safe?
I'm not saying an individual would be so unlucky to look like Jew boy Woodie Allen but that might occur.
Not "safe" from having that person sue you, no. They'd assert claims similar to Allen's because the statute says (if I'm not mistaken) "likeness" which would probably include that.
"Jew boy"? Did you really write that? Are you twelve years old?
What does Woody Allen's ethnicity have to do with this issue or Charney's off-base injection of the First Amendment into the issue?
He's a statutory rapist, a shithead, barely better than Nushawn Williams except nobody's proven that he's infected with HIV. A matter of time. I hope he dies in a fire and leaves vulnerable young girls alone to discover their own methods of self-destruction.
ugh
Please tell me what "societal discussion" is created by taking a still shot of a copyright protected film and slapping your companies logo onto it?
When I see that ad I say to myself "Wow, an American Apparel ad that isn't softcore porn...lame."
they're both scummy but at least 1. Charney doesn't really hide it. 2. He didn't marry his daughter. 3. He didn't perpetuate one of the most annoying characters in cinema history (the neurotic, nerdy, NY Jew of whom I don't mind in real life) and 4. started a company that for the most part has some pretty amazing business practices and proves the point that we don't need to hire children in other countries to run successful companies.
that being said. yeah dude, you can't just use somebodies picture to sell your product. totally not cool.
Dov Charny is why I don't buy American Apparel. That and the fact that the clothes wear out and get holes after a wash or two and they look like they were pulled from a bad 1987 teen fashion spread.
so now using Allen's likeness was all about provoking thoughtful discussion? using some barely-intelligible annie hall metaphor? Please.
A.A. are assholes.
There is nothing enduring or original about AA. I hope the go bankrupt.
Even Charny is a caricature of Terry Richardson. I think he really wants to be like Terry.
He makes a sloppy ad, and when the lawyers come calling he calls it "parody" because the Hustler case declared parody to be constitutionally protected speech. Which would have been well and good if Dov had remembered to include parody in his original ad.
Parody = fair use.
Artistic appropriation = murky battleground.
Appropriation for the purpose of selling stuff = Shepard Fairey.
What a creepy dude.
Fred Armisen was excellent.