May 18, 2009

"Lawyers had argued the advertisements... did not have a commercial purpose..."

Lawyers. They'll say anything.

14 comments:

Jason (the commenter) said...

and were intended as a parody.

Artistic idea: take the images off of American Apparel brand t-shirts, put them on my t-shirts and slap my brand name on them.

Lem said...

Profit was not the controlling legal authority.

Palladian said...

"Allen says his reputation was damaged..."

lol. He should sue himself for that too.

I saw one of these billboards on the corner of Houston and Allen streets. I of course recognized the still from Annie Hall and saw the American Apparel logo but there was some Hebrew on the ad that I couldn't read and the entire thing didn't make sense to me. I thought it had something to do with the formerly Jewish lower east side of Manhattan, but it seemed vaguely anti-Semitic in a hip, ironic sort of way. Also I couldn't understand why a company that usually flogs their wares using flash-blasted snapshot of sebaceous dirtbags in two-days-unwashed leotards and undershirts had decided to use Woody Allen as a model. But then I remembered that it's hip and ironic, man, and that I'm not supposed to understand, so I forgot about it till now. The billboard, incidentally, was removed after a week or so.

dbp said...

""The billboards were designed to inspire dialogue. They were certainly never intended to sell clothes," Charney said in a statement on his Web site."

If we believe him on the above, then it sounds like the sharehoders have a cause of action.

They could say, "Why are you wasting our money on stuff that doesn't further our commercial interests"?

Pogo said...

"Allen, 73, who says he does not sell his image for commercial profit in the United States..."

That explains his last 22 films.

rhhardin said...

What about the time Woody Allen dreamed that he was drowning and somebody else's life flashed before his eyes?

That was my life, and he used it in a joke for commercial purposes.

hdhouse said...

I felt it particularly rich that Dov Charney did this to promote dialogue instead of for commercial gain.

I'm fairly certain that the monologue in his head was hmmmm "talka bout it" no no...sell sell sell buy buy buy buy...."talka bout it" nnnnooooo!!! sell em buybuybuy....talk...buy...talk .....sell!

traditionalguy said...

Lawyers are not dumb. If we have the facts on our side, we plead true facts.If we lose with the truth, we blow smoke and settle ASAP. Cutting the client's losses is as vauable as making the client new money. Just win baby, win.

ricpic said...

"...anti-Semitic in a hip, ironic sort of way."

The badge of the beautiful people.

Florida said...

"Lawyers had argued the advertisements... did not have a commercial purpose..."

Exactly what are you quoting.

The quote you cite does not appear in the story.

So, your thesis that lawyers will say anything isn't supported by the evidence.

mcg said...

Except that she's a lawyer, and that's what she said.

former law student said...

""Lawyers had argued the advertisements... did not have a commercial purpose...""

i.e. the billboards constituted unOrthodox advertising.

A Lawyer Mom's Musings said...

Not being Jewish, I'm hopelessly clueless. Did being depicted as Hasidic cause such a flurry or was it not being Hasidic that sounded so slurry?

Brian said...

Jason-

Wrong artistic idea. You need to flip it. Take cheap t-shirts, silk screen the American Apparel brand onto them, and sell them as a "parody" of AA's trademark law hypocrisy.