Eyeteeth: A journal of incisive ideas: Louis Vuitton sues artist Nadia Plesner -- again -- for using handbag image in Darfur art
source: http://eyeteeth.blogspot.com/2011/03/louis-vuitton-sues-artist-nadia-plesner.html
-
-
- AJBell
- added this
repost this as much as possible to show the "entity and General Counsel" of Louis Vuitton that freedom of artistic expression is an artists right. Even on a socially aware level. Nadia is using cultural symbolism in a painting relating to the suffering in Darfur and the juxtaposition of different cultures
ESPECIALLY when a lame insignia is sort of replicated -not a plug-not a jab-a paradigm.
I can understand the feeling that the company had when they saw the painting with a similar insignia, however Vuitton has marketing, PR, sales and global networks filling their pockets; nothing wrong with that at all, success is great. Why is there a feeling of guilt or anger or a need to call attention to Vuitton by litigating.
IP/intellectual property is an important law. copyrights should be respected and left alone. I see a gray area however when I see a painting that flashes a Vuitton emblem that may catch the eye of a fashion lover and in turn, see the compelling awareness of reality of suffering in the other countries that don't seem to be real to a Vuitton handbag buyer.
Right in that moment is an opportunity for a person, who CAN afford to spend $ on Vuitton items, to think about the reality of the worlds state.
It's not putting a steaming pile of moose poop atop a Prada emblem. It's thought-provoking social media.
Maybe Vuitton could save face if they now donated some of their profits on that specific line to Darfur for damage control.... does some random woman with a dog on her lap drinking cold coffee really have to be the one to shake sense into these General Counsel at Vuitton? (I have very close friends that practice IP/Ent law in NY who rep big names too who will be pissed but the truth must be spoken-at least my truth...bad grammar, punctuation and all.
ESPECIALLY when a lame insignia is sort of replicated -not a plug-not a jab-a paradigm.
I can understand the feeling that the company had when they saw the painting with a similar insignia, however Vuitton has marketing, PR, sales and global networks filling their pockets; nothing wrong with that at all, success is great. Why is there a feeling of guilt or anger or a need to call attention to Vuitton by litigating.
IP/intellectual property is an important law. copyrights should be respected and left alone. I see a gray area however when I see a painting that flashes a Vuitton emblem that may catch the eye of a fashion lover and in turn, see the compelling awareness of reality of suffering in the other countries that don't seem to be real to a Vuitton handbag buyer.
Right in that moment is an opportunity for a person, who CAN afford to spend $ on Vuitton items, to think about the reality of the worlds state.
It's not putting a steaming pile of moose poop atop a Prada emblem. It's thought-provoking social media.
Maybe Vuitton could save face if they now donated some of their profits on that specific line to Darfur for damage control.... does some random woman with a dog on her lap drinking cold coffee really have to be the one to shake sense into these General Counsel at Vuitton? (I have very close friends that practice IP/Ent law in NY who rep big names too who will be pissed but the truth must be spoken-at least my truth...bad grammar, punctuation and all.
-
- groups:
- Indie Film
-
- tags:
- Art and Style, Darfur, Independent Film, Louis Vuitton, 2 more
