Threadtrend

Everyone knows that Louis Vuitton hates copycats, but this is ridiculous.

Artist Nadia Plesner started her Simply Living campaign last October, selling posters and shirts depicting a Darfur victim. The twist is that the victim channels Paris Hilton, while carrying a chihuahua and a designer bag.

Her thought process for the project was this:

My illustration Simple Living is an idea inspired by the medias constant cover of completely meaningless things. My thought was: Since doing nothing but wearing designerbags and small ugly dogs appearantly is enough to get you on a magasine cover, maybe it is worth a try for people who actually deserves and needs attention.

One hundred percent of the profits go to Divest for Darfur, a foundation that helps the victims of the genocide. Pretty awesome, right?

Well, Louis Vuitton doesn’t think so.

According to Plesner’s website, the luxury goods company sent her a letter in February, demanding that she end the campaign immediately and referring to her website as “Exhibit 1.” Like any self-respecting artist, Plesner told them she wouldn’t comply with their request. So…..on April 15, they slapped her with a lawsuit. The company, which is known for aggressively fighting LV fakes, has demanded:

• $7,500 for each day that Plesner continues the charity campaign
• $7,500 for each day their letter is published on her website
• $7,500 a day for using the Louis Vuitton name on her website

And that’s not all. They also want her to pay for their lawyers and $15,000 for damages.

I’m sorry to not be more eloquent, but they’re really a bunch of dicks. I don’t really buy their intellectual property argument. This is art, and it’s not even being sold for profit but, rather, to help human beings who are living under horrific conditions.

I find it totally frustrating that Louis Vuitton promotes their brand and image as iconic, practically acting like their product is integral to our civilization, but then pulls this kind of stuff when an artist portrays it as such. They can’t have it both ways. If they want to sell their goods as symbols of luxury, they should expect that artists would contrast that with symbols of human suffering.

They should be happy that their symbol is earning money for a worthy cause. Now go buy the stuff.

-Valentina

Source.