Thread: Louis Vuitton Vs. Artist Nadia Plesner

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?

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 ...

Originally Posted by Maeveyblue

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.

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...

Originally Posted by NashvilleDiva_83

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...

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.

Originally Posted by NashvilleDiva_83

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.