Excerpted from avant-garb.net


Louis Vuitton is suing artist Nadia Plesner for use of their name and likeness.

Through her Simply Living campaign, started in October 2007, Plesner sells products with the image of a Darfur victim with a chihuahua and a Louis Vuitton-esque purse. All proceeds benefit Divest for Darfur.

In February Louis Vuitton contacted Plesner, telling her to stop the Simply Living campaign. Plesner refused, and on April 15, the luxury goods company sued her for the following:

$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

The lawsuit also asks her to pay for their lawyers and pay LV $15,000 in damages.

I don't know how I feel about this. I think it's wonderful that she was helping People who really needed it but I think she should have contacted them to get their ok or better yet see if they wanted to help raise money for the cause as well. I wonder why she thought she could do that?

I agree...

While I am all for artistic expression and can completely appreciate and support her cause, you just can't take intellectual property and use it in that way.

I think its an awful vision to put a third world starving child in the same photo as a luxury handbag.... I hope she ( the artist ) loses the suit ... I'd be pissed if I were louis vuitton as well!!! What an insult!

Personally I think LV should of just ignored it. The artist is trying to make a point and although some think it is tacky, she has a point and it is all for charity. Just my 2 cents - as usual.

Maevey, I think that's a good point, personally.

I also wonder how much LV and these other big money making companies donate to charities every year.
My husband and I make it a point to donate 15% of our business earnings to several different charities. How wonderful it would be to have the funds that one of these companies has and really be able to make a difference. And when they DO donate, not have it just be for show.

Wow, Maeveyblue, that's wonderful! And I agree that companies should donate and not have it just be for show! They are absolutely capable of making a difference.

Its good to give to charity but you dont need to use someone elses creativity to do it...

The only charity I give to is St Judes childrens research hospital because 100% of your donations go to help...as everyone treated there is done so gratis ...

That is a good point... However they have to take it seriously so that other people dont use their likeness without permission

I still think the use was a direct insult to the company and it did cheapen the image...

But Nash, they aren't using LV's creativity, they are using a direct correlation between how different the two are. A child starving and a really expensive handbag. I think the point was trying to be made of "Look at the two extremes!". Kwim? If the artist had used a Hermes or Bal bag, people wouldn't have gotten it because those brands aren't as known, even though they are as expensive if not more. LV is known throughout the world for its price and "exclusivity".
Again, just my two cents.

Sometimes in life we have to pick our battles. This was one of those times when they should have just turned a blind eye.
It's the same with the insurance claim and Walmart. Do you remember that? The woman is terminally ill and her husband has even divorced her so that the state would take care of her because they had gone through all of their life savings. So Walmart sees that she has won a previous lawsuit against the offending party and they are coming back demanding what she got from them as compensation. In the meantime, it has all gone to hospital, doctor and hospice care.
Walmart filed suit (because it was in their right - legally) but then backed down when people started causing such a ruckus over it.
Legally, they had the right to go after her for the funds. $100,000 is a drop in the bucket for them but they still felt the need to sue. On principal and if I were the CEO or on the board of Walmart, I would have let it go.

They did ask nicely for her to stop (louis vuitton) ... So its not like they just swooped down with their big strong army of lawyers... I am sure that it was thought out before the filing.

Maybe I'd feel different if the cause was for sick kids or mistreated animals... But I still think it was inappropriate... Although I do understand the whole point of Paris Hilton making more front page news than genocide... Which is sad but part of our society.

Overall, if I had to pick sides I'd go with Louis Vuitton... I dont have much sympathy for the artist because they did ask her to stop.

But in a round about way that is exactly what they are doing. They are trying to stop these big companies from investing in Darfur investments, thus making the government stand up and take notice. In some countries, only the loss of money makes people revaluate how they are doing things. Because at this point they see no problem with the treatment of their people. Makes me sick.