What a coincidence, I used to play Pop Warner with a guy we called Tank Thong.

Backstory: Last year, American Apparel used Woody Allen’s picture in an ad without permission.  Allen sued them for $10 mil.  American Apparel, no doubt aware that they don’t have much of a case, used a novel “we can’t damage his reputation because people already think he’s a pervert defense,” most likely more as a deterrent for Allen than as an actual defense.  It’s kind of like trying to get a rape victim to drop the charges by threatening to devote all your energies to proving she’s a slut by calling to the stand all the dudes she’s banged.  Or saying, “I would never rape her – she’s ugly.”  Not surprisingly, Allen is now accusing American Apparel of harassment.

In papers filed Wednesday by his lawyers, the 73-year-old Allen said American Apparel Inc. went too far in requesting information about his family life, personal finances and career.

The new court papers said American Apparel has “adopted a `scorched earth’ approach,” issuing broad document requests and subpoenas to many people close to him, including his sister.

Allen’s lawyers said the company was seeking to “tarnish Mr. Allen’s reputation a second time” and called it a “despicable effort to intimate” him.

Allen also said ads shown to him by American apparel, including his rabbi ad, “have a sleazy quality to them” and were “not classy.”

This is a tough case.  You clearly can’t use someone’s image without their permission in your advertising.  On the other hand, a picture of Woody Allen dressed like a Hasidic Jew is definitely not worth $10 million.  I think the judge should take a page from Solomon, and give both parties swords, and whoever can cut a baby in half the fastest wins.  Because the bible says so, you see.

American Apparel, a clothing store for people practically begging to get punched, used this shot of Woody Allen from Annie Hall in their billboard on Allen street (omg, clever!) in NYC  last April.  Allen promptly sued them for $10 mil, saying they’d used the image without his permission and he doesn’t endorse products.  But now comes the good part.  Check out American Apparel’s counter argument:

American Apparel says that it can’t have damaged Allen’s reputation by using his image because the film director has already ruined it himself. The company plans to make Allen’s relationships to actress Mia Farrow and her adopted daughter Soon-Yi Previn the focus of a May 18 trial, according to the company’s lawyer, Stuart Slotnick. “Our belief is that after the various sex scandals that Woody Allen has been associated with, corporate America’s desire to have Woody Allen endorse their product is not what he may believe it is.”

Slotnick said it was not a cheap shot to bring up Allen’s sex life. “It’s certainly relevant in assessing the value of an endorsement,” he said, noting that Olympic swimmer “Michael Phelps lost endorsement power after a photograph surfaced of him using marijuana.”

Lawyers for American Apparel have complained that Allen has refused to turn over much of the information they have demanded to prepare for trial. Among their demands were documents concerning any endorsement requests that were withdrawn after the sex scandal with Farrow and Previn became public. [via AP, theplaylist]

Much as I hate everything about American Apparel and their ugly, annoying, boring, overpriced hipster clothes, even I have to admit the “Yeah? Well you’re a child molester” defense is pretty effin gangster.