Last we heard in the Woody Allen vs. American Apparel lawsuit (AA used unlicensed images of Allen in an ad campaign, see image), the clothing company of questionable practices decided to get ugly and side-step the issue of copyright infringement by using non-relevant issues.
The company decided to bring in the whole Mia Farrow/Soon-Yi Previn scandal from the early ’90s and claimed Allen’s reputation couldn’t have been sullied by the clothing company because he had already sullied it himself years ago in the very public contretemps.
Convenient, however, Allen’s $10 million dollar lawsuit appeared to have nothing to do with a damaged reputation and is simply about using unauthorized images. However, part of his lawsuit claimed that American Apparel’s ads were “sexually gross, in a witless and infantile way,” and this is probably what their lawyers seized upon (in fact the Guardian note that Allen’s lawyers claim that “use of his image falsely implied he endorsed American Apparel’s ‘low-end’ products and damaged his reputation,” so much for our theory there, but the specifics of the case are only coming out now).
Either way, AA’s lawyers apparently wanted Allen to justify just how their ads were “sleazy,” (so they could pounce on him no doubt) but a New York judge has ruled otherwise according to the New York Post.
A Manhattan Federal judge ruled that Allen had already shown that “he would not have voluntarily agreed to endorse” American Apparel’s products on two unauthorized billboards two years ago. “There is no reason to require him to identify specific advertisements that he finds distasteful.”
So there’s goes that rebuttal and argument. Though, having already shown their hands at going for the gutter, who knows what tactic is next. Either way, round one goes to Woody. We’ll keep you updated as the trial progresses, but it actually begins May 18 and these are just preliminary hearings (but still key).
