I would like to know how many billboards and other ads American Apparel has going on in the US at any given time. This was one billboard that was up briefly and really didn’t get much attention. Allen’s lawsuit created far more attention to the ad than anything that preceded the suit. I think that even if you make the claim that AA stole intellectual property here, and again, I’m not debating that point (just that it’s not Woody Allen’s but the film owner’s intellectual property), the first question that comes to mind is what would be the value of this action. One billboard out of dozens or hundreds plus who knows how many print and Internet ads just doesn’t seem to amount to much.

However, if Woody Allen wishes to amuse me as he has in his fine films – especially the earlier ones – with lawsuits that appear to inflate a minor offense to mercurial status, that’s fine. Somebody has to generate copy for AP and Reuters. And Jewlicious.

Your question about the percentage of American Apparel customers is interesting. I would think most AA customers couldn’t identify the movie OR Woody Allen although I probably agree that more would recognize Allen over the film.

But it’s your final question that brings me back to mine. I don’t believe it’s appropriate and it is probably not within my legal rights to use an image of Ford in an IA movie to generate revenue or other responses. However, if I were to briefly use an image of Jones in a humorous way on one billboard (when I have a national presence) and remove it immediately upon notification from Jones’ people that it offends him, then I would think that my “crime” is a small one. The notion that it merits a $10 million lawsuit (even if it’s just a starting point for settlement talks) is absurd and it is even more ridiculous to suggest that harm has been caused to Allen because the image is one that he himself put up on screens.

Even the claim that association with American Apparel somehow harms Allen’s image is relatively weak since the image used is clearly intended to be humorous and doesn’t indicate that Allen, the person, supports the company. Rather, the impression I get is that a character created by Allen – and clearly a humorous character at that, especially if you know the history of AA advertising – is a supporter of the company. In other words, a “literary” creation – a fiction – is a fan.

It isn’t the movie that merits the attention. If it were an image from another scene of the movie where the actors weren’t featured prominently, no one would take issue. What percentage of American Apparel customers can identify the movie from which it was taken and what percentage can identify Allen? Do you believe using an image of Harrison Ford from Indiana Jones to generate revenue is within your legal rights?

Anyway, hasn’t anybody heard of asking for a public apology and a donation to charity?