This artwork, designed for the Divest for Darfur campaign by Nadia Plesner, has drawn the ire of Louis Vuitton's lawyers.
I'll say this much right off the bat... It's going to take a massive investment in charitable organizations for me to ever promote Louis Vuitton on this site. After reading about their lawsuit against an artist trying to raise funds for Darfur refugees, I'm pretty certain I won't have anything worthwhile to say about them.
The story goes like this.. Nadia Plesner is an artist who created the design you see to the left. Her goal is best stated in her own words, so I'll let her speak for herself:
"I wanted to try to portray how distorted it is, how parts of the media prioritize between small and big world news. Even with the terrible genocide going on in Darfur, Paris Hilton is getting most of the attention," she said. "If all it takes to make the front page is a designer bag and a small dog, maybe it's worth trying that for the people who really need attention.
"Everyone knows the image of starving black child, but we've seen it so many times that we don't really respond to it anymore," she said. "It was a test to see how the media reacts if you 'pimp the victim.' I think it worked."
But then come along the lawyers for Louis Vuitton, and suddenly they're sending her a cease and desist letter which, while polite, basically tells her to stop using her own artwork. Now that she's decided to fight them, they're raising the stakes and want more. Lots more.
"Originally, they wanted $7,500," said Designers for Darfur founder Malcom Harris, who's defending Plesner's project. "After she placed the cease-and-desist letter on her Web site, that went up. Every time she uses their name on her Web site she's charged an additional $7,500 a day. So at the current rate, she's being charged $20,000 a day."
What the lawyers for Louis Vuitton are thinking is beyond me. Hopefully, though, Ms. Plesner will win out and Louis Vuitton will see that this accomplishes nothing for them but bad publicity. That's certainly all they're going to get from me.
via Ecorazzi and ABC News
The Nadia Plesner Reality.
We must all be very aware of the problems in Darfur however, the problems are caused by many but the resposibility is for ALL.
The reality is that even as one tries to get the point of Nadia Plensers T.shirt, is that Louis Vuitton is not responsible for what is happening in Darfur. LV cannot be made to bear responsibility for injustices carried out everywhere.
Why could she not take on Paris Hilton herself, Hollywood, Maserati, Bentley, Gucci, Coach (even more ubiquitous than LV), CNN and all the newssites that promote the celeb garbage that is churned out every day - she has a few dozen targets. She decided to take on the most obvious and consequently what she perceived to be the "easiest target - Louis Vuitton.
The judgement meted out by LV is indeed harsh, but Plesner is playing with fire. I dont know who is egging her on but this is a trademark, copyright lawsuit that we have seen coming for a while now.
Plesner may end up paying the price for the copyright infringement LV has endured all this while.
We wish her the best.
BTW, do you work for LV?
Maybe you do, and maybe you don't, but I find it really interesting that I found almost the exact same words as (presumably) you posted on another blog at Blogher.
Seems to me someone has a vested interest in putting out the LV company message to improve their bad publicity about this case. But being lazy about it and posting the exact same words on each blog doesn't do you any good, just makes it sound like LV is trying to cover their ass, or in this case, declining image.
Re: The Nadia Plesner Reality
I understand the point you're trying to make. I won't pretend to know the reasons Louis Vuitton was the target of Ms. Plesner, however I do get the impression that Paris Hilton was the primary target of the artwork, combined with the message of mass consumerism and lack of absolute thought about the situation in Darfur by people like her.
As far as the trademark/copyright lawsuit, I don't know what will happen in that regard, but my guess is that this work will be viewed as parody and satire. If the case were to be tried in the U.S. she would likely win hands down, although I suspect this will take place in the European courts.
Post new comment