Woody Allen has agreed to a $5 million settlement in his lawsuit against American Apparel, which used an image of the director from his film Annie Hall on billboards without his permission.  While the case in Manhattan certainly raised many important issues about intellectual property, creative rights and free speech, ultimately I think the ruling is fair and the impending court battle could have turned ugly and inappropriate.  As Gina pointed out last month, Dov Charney, the founder and chief executive of American Apparel, crossed the line by using Woody’s image without his permission. Moreover, threatening to bring in character witnesses to dredge up previous, unrelated scandals seems hardly the right way to argue for First Amendment rights, especially against his supposed hero.

Despite Charney’s eloquent defense of his billboards, I don’t think you can compare an advertisement, which clearly promoted American Apparel if not specific clothing, and fictional characters in film created for satire.  I’m intrigued by Dov’s analogy comparing his own battles with public opinion and the media regarding questionable hiring practices and advertising to Mr. Allen’s much maligned relationship with Soon-Yi Previn, but I would think that would make him more sensitive to character assassination in court.  Ultimately, I think Dov could have handled the whole situation better, starting with either asking Woody’s permission or by making a more creative allusion to the artist, instead of a blatant misappropriation.

Well, it seems no one is getting away with crimes and misdemeanors today, and thankfully there were no bullets over Broadway or a Manhattan murder mystery.  Let me know what you think of Woody’s victory, or should I say match point, in the comments section below.

Photo: thirdrail’s flickr photostream (creative commons)