Here are some
materials related to
the Woody Allen
case. We worked hard
to research them
since we felt
strongly that this
was a First
Amendment issue.
They would have come
out on their own
during the trial so
now we’d like to
share them with you.

1) This is an
inspiring clip from
the 1996 film The
People vs Larry
Flynt. In this
video, an actor
playing Alan
Issacman
explains to
the Supreme Court
Justices how
parodies and satires
constitute an
important part of
our society. Our CEO
Dov Charney spoke
with Mr. Issacman
who told him that
the screen version
is an accurate,
albeit abridged
version of his
argument.

2) Larry Flynt’s
deposition prior to
the trial are
fascinatingly
strange.

3) Woody Allen’s
Camel billboard from
the movie
Zelig, a
mockumentary, where
he satires the
likeness of over 20
public figures.

4) Rabbi
Schneerson (also
known as “The
Rebbe”, 1902-1994)
was
a prodigious scholar
of the Torah from
childhood who
amassed 200,000
Orthodox believers
worldwide. He rarely
left the study of
his synagogue except
to pray at his
father’s graveside.
The Yiddish text on the American Apparel billboard alludes to a position in the Jewish faith similar to
his.

Key arguments in the
case involved Woody
Allen would have
involved examples
explaining to people
the important reason
that an individual
or corporation
should be allowed to
invoke the likeness
of a public figure
in order to advance
a social statement,
even if they are
connected to a
commercial purpose.

Here are some
interesting ones:

A)
LittleBrotherisWatching.com
put
a billboard in
Boston, overlooking
Fenway park. The
billboard features
the likeness of
former President
George W. Bush with
address of the
website. The page it
takes you to has a
variety of essays
and links about the
US Constitution.
Attached to the site
is an online store
that sells t-shirts
with the image on
it.

B) This George Bush
doll is available
online and at
stores. In 2005, Dov
appeared in an
American Apparel
ad with the
George Bush doll. In
China, a bar
actually has a
promotion where
patrons throw shoes
at a cutout of
George Bush and, the
winners who manage
to hit it,
get free drinks and
win one of these
dolls.

C) Kate Moss is a
fashion model who is
paid for her
endorsements and to
appear in
advertisements.
However, after she
was photographed in
the middle of
engaging in some
illicit drug use, two
artists turned the
image into a t-shirt
and shower mat which they
sell online and
had exhibited in a show.

D) In 1997, Los
Angeles Magazine
repurposed an image
of Dustin Hoffman
from the movie
Tootsie and
used it as the cover
photo for their
March issue. Their
parody of his image
was intended to be a
statement about
fashion and film.
Hoffman sued under
one of the same
statutes invoked by
Woody Allen and a
district court ruled
in his favor,
awarding him a $3
million dollar
verdict. The 9th
Circuit court
disagreed and, in
the ruling, turned over the
verdict:

“On appeal, a panel
of Ninth Circuit
judges led by Robert
Boochever held that
the magazine spread
was speech protected
by the First
Amendment, and not
merely ‘commercial
speech’ which does
little more than
propose a commercial
transaction.

“Viewed in context,
the article as a
whole is a
combination of
fashion photography,
humor, and visual
and verbal editorial
comment on classic
films and famous
actors,” Boochever
said in the opinion.
“Any commercial
aspects are
‘inextricably
intertwined’ with
expressive elements,
and so they cannot
be separated out
‘from the fully
protected
whole.’”

–

If the logic from
Woody Allen’s legal
argument was applied
broadly, these forms
of speech – social
or politically
statements done by
companies or
individuals – would
be endangered.

As a conclusion, you
may enjoy this
article which ran in
the Los Angeles
Business Journal
on
Friday where Dov
spoke openly about
the case to Alexa
Hyland, a legal
reporter for the
paper. These two
passages are
interesting:

In a long interview
with the Los Angeles
Business Journal,
Charney said the
incident began
innocently enough.
He watched and was
moved by Annie
Hall. At the
time, Charney was
experiencing an
onslaught of
negative press over
allegations that he
sexually harassed a
former employee, and
he felt
misunderstood and
publicly ridiculed.
In the movie, Allen
was misunderstood,
too, and Charney
said he felt the
image he captured
depicted that.

“I was watching
‘Annie Hall’ and I
said this moment in
the scene spoke to
the sensibilities of
being misperceived,”
Charney said. “I
felt this was an
opportune moment to
speak in a comedic
matter and it was a
satiric spoof.”

In particular,
Charney was itching
to set the record
straight over news
reports that
American Apparel
planned to exploit
Allen’s personal
life during the
trial by calling his
former girlfriend
Mia Farrow and his
current wife, Soon
Yi Previn to the
witness stand.
Charney maintains
that he never would
have done that, and
that Allen’s
attorneys used a
court document to
spin the media.

“I would never
exploit Mr. Allen or
deploy shame tactics
against him and I
would have refused
to participate in a
trial that did so,”
he told the Business
Journal.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.