Home : Celebrity Justice : Funny, That Face Looks Real Familiar

Celebrity Justice
Funny, That Face Looks Real Familiar

Posted May 23rd 2008 8:30AM by TMZ Staff

Remember that kinda awesome Gap ad from a couple years ago with Audrey Hepburn in "Funny Face" dancing to "Back in Black"? (Yeah you do.) Well the guy who directed "Funny Face" -- Stanley Donen -- wants his cut of the cash Gap and Paramount made from the spot.

Only, oh, two years after the ad first dropped, the directing legend says in a lawsuit that the companies used his clip without permission, and wants $5 million -- or if he can't get that, $375,000, which is what he claims Paramount made.

Donen was also at the helm of "Singin' in the Rain," "On the Town," and "Damn Yankees." Reps for Paramount and Gap didn't immediately have comment.

Tags: Audrey Hepburn, AudreyHepburn, Gap Ad, GapAd

Comments [9]
SHARE |
4ie6

Reader Comments

(Page 1 of 1)

1. 1 bitches

Posted at 9:24AM on May 23rd 2008 by Rosie

2. good luck getting any $$$$ from gap, I work for the company and they are one of the cheapest companies out there, especially in regard to the way the treat their employees. Iam sure only the top people are making any kind of money.

Posted at 9:42AM on May 23rd 2008 by suzanne

3. good luck getting anything from gap

Posted at 9:43AM on May 23rd 2008 by suzanne

4. The guy's a legend. Give him his money. How could those companies be dumb enough not to get clearance on the footage?

Posted at 12:39PM on May 26th 2008 by S.A.

5. GAP NEEDS TO PAY THOSE GREEDY PIGS & GET OVER IT

Posted at 9:59AM on May 23rd 2008 by Nicole

6. Harvey, since you're a "lawyer" you should know that the statute of limitations allows him to sue for a period of time after the event takes place. The guys doesn't have to follow the Gap's schedule of stealing his work.

Posted at 10:35AM on May 23rd 2008 by Julie

7. Julie is exactly right. If there was something inherently wrong about waiting two years to file the lawsuit, as tmz implies, the legal system wouldn't set a statute of limitations of that length to which litigants adhere. Instead, the statute of limitations would be one month or something equally absurd.


Posted at 11:29AM on May 23rd 2008 by MH

8. OR--maybe the behind the scenes negotiating failed and he was forcd to sue...Ya never get the whole story from TMZ,just bits enuf to make it sound embarrassing or salacious.

Posted at 6:15PM on May 23rd 2008 by OR--

9. The problem is that poor old Stanley doesn't really have a leg to stand on. Paramount owns the movie, not him. Stanley was just the director, he wasn't even a producer so he has no say in what Paramount does with THEIR movie. Poor old guy probably only came forward with the lawsuit because someone convinced him he had a chance. People praying on the elderly is just wrong.

Posted at 9:27AM on May 24th 2008 by Jman