Field Notes Inside an Integrated Communications Agency

I’ve mentioned before that I’m a copyright nerd. As a creative guy I see that legal protection as a way to ensure our profession continues to grow, challenge and remain fairly compensated. Don’t get me wrong, there are vast gray areas and litigation shenanigans that drag to sludgy lows. But on the whole I respect that an artist has clear rights.

Case in point. Peace-friendly American Apparel was recently slapped with a $10 million lawsuit from director Woody Allen. The suit claims Allen’s reputation has been damaged by billboards using his image (the famous photo dressed as a Hasidic Jew from Annie Hall) without his permission.

According to the report, the suit alleges that the billboard falsely implied Allen sponsored, endorsed or was associated with American Apparel, and accuses the company of “blatant misappropriation and commercial use of Allen’s image.” The company, known for “provocative photography,” claims it was used as “strictly social parody.”

Fair enough. Parody is one of the ways a copyrighted work may be used legally without permission. Problem is American Apparel SELLS stuff. Their use of parody is clearly for commercial gain. If not, there wouldn’t be a logo on the billboards. I believe American Apparel is a great company. Unfortunately, this is a misstep that strikes at their socially-conscious image.

What level of parody do you think is legal for commercial use?