Woody Allen's good point

Woody Allen is suing the American Apparel company for $10 million for using his image on its billboards and web site without his permission. The actor-director-writer does not endorse products in the United States and didn't authorize American Apparel to use his image in their advertising, but the company ignored his rights and put his image up on billboards in Hollywood and New York, where they attracted attention for a week before the company took the ads down.

Jury selection in the trial is scheduled to begin on May 18.

Now, get this.

American Apparel, in an attempt to prove to the court that Woody Allen's image isn't worth $10 million, wants to call Mia Farrow and her adopted daughter, also known as Mr. Allen's former longtime companion and current wife, respectively, to the witness stand. The company intends to prove in court, in detail, that Woody Allen's personal life has made him so unattractive to corporate advertisers that they would never in a million years pay him anything close to $10 million.

American Apparel's executives ought to be in jail for this, and their lawyer, Stuart Slotnick, shouldn't be too proud of himself either.

Regardless of what anybody thinks of Woody Allen's personal life, the company thought his image was valuable enough to plaster on their billboards and web site. The particular image they chose was from Mr. Allen's Oscar-winning film, "Annie Hall."

They used his image in their advertising without his permission.

Woody Allen's image is his own property, no one else's, to exploit for commercial purposes. If American Apparel moved into your house while you were out running errands, and you sued them to get it back, would it be a valid defense to tell the court that the house isn't worth as much as your lawsuit seeks? Would it be relevant evidence if pornographic pictures were found hidden in one of the dresser drawers?

No, it would not.

Woody Allen's likeness is his property.

Just like your house is your property.

Property rights matter. Property rights are the foundation of freedom.

If anyone with a whim can take your property from you and then ruin your life with disclosures in court, your freedom isn't worth the parchment it's printed on.

Theft of property ought to be treated as theft of property, and not as the starting point of a protracted negotiation for compensation.

If there's any justice in our justice system, the Manhattan judge hearing Woody Allen's case will tell American Apparel they can't call witnesses with the intention of smearing a man whose image they stole for their own financial advantage.

This kind of thing is dangerous.

It could turn a filmmaker into an Ayn Rand conservative.

By the time this lawsuit is over, Woody Allen might be directing the film version of "Atlas Shrugged."

They could do worse.


Copyright 2009

.