The Storque - Comments for article: You be the Judge: Vuitton and Darfur

My 1st though

Wed, 27 Aug 2008 23:47:15 -0000

On article: You be the Judge: Vuitton and Darfur
Comment by: sparklecity

My 1st thought was, if they purchased an authentic LV bag, it's up to them what they do with it.. however, if you take a moment and look at the bag in the photo, it's obviously FAKE!! Therefore Louis Vuitton ABSOLUTELY 100% has the right to demand they NOT infringe upon their trademarked/copyrighted items. I am sure Louis Vuitton spends MILLIONS AND MILLIONS to PROTECT THEIR products/images.. and while the image above is being used for non profit.. where should Vuitton draw the line? A copyright is a copyright.. period!!! So, I say, MAKE THEM REMOVE THE IMAGE! P.S.. "Simple Living" or ANY non profit company should at least request to use such images directly to Louis Vuitton.. That's my 2 cents! :)

It is clearly

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:04:15 -0000

On article: You be the Judge: Vuitton and Darfur
Comment by: TerraScents

It is clearly a parody. Kudos to the artist!!

well, law in

Sun, 25 May 2008 09:49:50 -0000

On article: You be the Judge: Vuitton and Darfur
Comment by: FireHazardBeads

well, law in europe is not so bad as it is in the usa...smile... and definitly i guess that a judge does not go an pass that claim to the good for LV it is art. even printet on shirts. still art. the bag and also the dog is not paintet on to make an profite out of the bag. it is not real an bag, it is an painting and you can not habve this painting used like the bag can be used...smile... all art also is commerce, the commerce aspect starts in the moment we put an price tag on and have the pieces for sale. otherwise we just could give them away for free...smile... and my personal opinion is... what does LV want? they have no damage, no lost, no nothing... it is art ... and it have an saying... and in 30 years it may hangs in an LV museum...

If the Plesne

Fri, 09 May 2008 16:03:52 -0000

On article: You be the Judge: Vuitton and Darfur
Comment by: neile

If the Plesner piece was simply a work on canvas would it be a concern for LV? When she starts putting the image onto t-shirts and posters, it crosses a line from art into commerce (even if the proceeds go to chartiy). I wonder if there is a difference in allowing freedom of speech in something that will hang in a museum, or something that is widly available for purchase.

I have though

Wed, 07 May 2008 17:54:55 -0000

On article: You be the Judge: Vuitton and Darfur
Comment by: excely

I have thought about this more... Now I understand that the imagery is not necessarily intended to be a negative commentary on LV, but on the media for showcasing the likes of Paris Hilton, when there are truly needy people who could use the media intention. Now, the artist most certainly chose the LV design for the bag because it is easily recongnizable and is associated with wealth. Would the image work as well with another, less obviously designer, bag? I'm not sure it would, because something less obvious may not as easily bring to mind the media darlings that the artist is trying to lampoon. Could the image as is be perceived/mistaken as a negative commentary on LV itself? Quite possibly. For these reasons, I do think that LV has a case.

I think it is

Wed, 07 May 2008 14:21:00 -0000

On article: You be the Judge: Vuitton and Darfur
Comment by: crittyandzoe

I think it is a fantastic and needed statement by the artist. I think it took great courage from within to even face a problem of that magnitude and emotionality. I don't think that anyone has the right to stifle an artist's expression no matter how disturbing the message. No one, not even a multi-billion dollar company, has the right to do what LV is doing. Art is not necessarily about getting everyone to agree with what you're trying to convey. To me, art should provoke strong reactions ... so actually, LV is doing the artist a favor by calling even more attention to her work. In the political world it has always been said that bad press is much better than no press at all. I stand up and say BRAVO and I will soon be the proud new owner of a Nadia Plesner t-shirt!

interesting.

Wed, 07 May 2008 07:24:25 -0000

On article: You be the Judge: Vuitton and Darfur
Comment by: jellibat

interesting. as an artistic idea i think this is quite a striking image, and of course expresses the artist intent perfectly. they have guilty conscience perhaps? of course any of those big name designers items could have been inserted, a chanel, prada, etc .. would have the same effect. i guess its unlucky they chose this certain iconic bag in the work. I wonder would those other labels have had the same (I think extreme and ridiculous) reaction to the work if they had been drawn instead. would LV cared at all if an artist had painted a certain skinny blonde woman naked with a parody design bag and small dog? it is also interesting to note that "parody" or "homage" by other artists of this Louis Vitton design doesn't seem to have caused a similar reaction from the designer label. just look for Wim Delvoys tattooed pigs whom are live real pigs tattooed with the instantly recognisable pattern, apparantly this artists even plans to make bags of of the pig skins later on. Photographer Dave LaChapelle made a work where he photographed Lil Kim, naked but covered in fake tattoos of the iconic LV design. all these artists are making artistic statements on the percieved prestige of the label and the iconic nature of the design.

I don't know

Wed, 07 May 2008 06:44:49 -0000

On article: You be the Judge: Vuitton and Darfur
Comment by: quirke

I don't know what Danish law says about copyright, so I'll address it as if it was a U.S. case. ------------------ § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40 Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include — (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. --------------------------- So... (1) The purpose of the use is non-profit and I suspect educational, not commercial. (2) It's a bag. I would guess that the print is the copyrighted part, rather than the shape of the bag. Is it a recognizable print? I wouldn't know it as Louis Vuitton just by looking at it. I'm really not sure how widely recognizable a print it is. Or perhaps I'm alone in not being educated on the prints of high-end fashion designers. (3) Is the bag a substantial portion of the work? This is rather subjective. You could argue that the focus of the piece is the child, and that the bag is not integral to the meaning of the piece (i.e. you could replace the bag with a fancy watch or jewellery and it would make the same point), or you could argue that the image of the bag is vitally important to the parody. I'm inclined to argue the former, as I think the bag could have been replaced by other items and the same point would have been made. The LV bag is merely symbolic of wealth and status and not meant as literal. (4) Is this piece going to damage LV's profits? Again, hard to know. Surely their lawyers would argue, yes. I personally find it difficult to believe that the items being sold for charity would actually impact LV's bottom line. It's not as though the art is somehow slanderous. IMO, LV is overreaching and stepping on the toes of freedom of expression. The piece is clearly intended as commentary, the LV bag is not integral to the commentary, the LV reputation is not harmed by incorporating the image of the bag, and the artist isn't personally profiting by use of the image of the bag.

I can see one

Wed, 07 May 2008 01:18:35 -0000

On article: You be the Judge: Vuitton and Darfur
Comment by: Ekioart

I can see one of the big reasons she went with that pattern/color base. She wanted the bag to stand out boldly. While I didn't focus on the pattern of the bag I did note in my head that it was a LV pattern when I first saw the picture. So I'm a little on the fence here. I feel like a. it is a parody of sorts. It could have been done with an ostrich or alligator pattern in a bold color, but it wouldn't have immediately brought to mind a major designer. I would bet this comes down to a large settlement by LV as a donation to charity but it all really comes down to Danish laws. Interesting case for sure.

I think the a

Wed, 07 May 2008 01:04:52 -0000

On article: You be the Judge: Vuitton and Darfur
Comment by: eclipse

I think the artwork would be just as effective if she used a more generic bag design with a fake logo that didn't resemble LV so much. It would just stand for all those logo-covered handbags like Dooney & Burke, Coach, etc. The point would still be made without using an exact recognizable LV bag design.

I can't say h

Wed, 07 May 2008 00:02:06 -0000

On article: You be the Judge: Vuitton and Darfur
Comment by: excely

I can't say how the Danish laws will come down on this issue, but the illustrated bag is VERY EASILY confused for a very famous LV design. There is way more in common between this illustration (really, the only difference is an S instead of a V) and the LV design than there was between the apple logos in the last 'you be the judge' I saw. Unfortunately too, cases like these are not decided based on what many think would be the RIGHT (morally speaking) thing for LV to do...

I agree with

Tue, 06 May 2008 23:27:56 -0000

On article: You be the Judge: Vuitton and Darfur
Comment by: roboroku

I agree with dottyral. It is negative publicity for Louis Vuitton. Taking the emotional element out of the issue, the LV bag should be re-designed. In an ideal situation who wouldn't want LV to jump on board with financial contributions? The design should be changed period. Using their design seems like an attack on LV, even if it's not.

Intriguing, b

Tue, 06 May 2008 22:56:16 -0000

On article: You be the Judge: Vuitton and Darfur
Comment by: juln

Intriguing, but it's pretty difficult to determine what I would say as the judge in the case since my command of the details of Danish copyright law is a bit lacking.

There are so

Tue, 06 May 2008 22:37:04 -0000

On article: You be the Judge: Vuitton and Darfur
Comment by: elizabethplaid

There are so many products out there, knock-offs as well as fellow designers, that use similar designs/patterns. I agree with tinalewis in that a different pattern (even without the initials) and a cell phone would've made the same statement. However, it's too late to say what could've been done; Plesner and the lawyers have to make the best of the stituation as it stands now. If either backs down on their status, it sends a message; even the case alone sends one (namely, "Is LV's motivation behind the case more than just what they state?" Alas, speculation can run rampant with this one). This is a time where I like to recall a lesson I learned in pre-school: comprimise. Someone mentioned the idea of LV saying, "Stop using the image, and we'll donate to your cause." What about even letting her use the image (her version, not LV's specific version), and LV can partner with the cause, donating a percentage of their profits (total or just profits made on a select line of products made specially for charity) to the cause? That way, LV shows the public that even the big boys can listen to the message, that such a cause cannot be ignored. As a last note, haptotrope's photograph idea is very interesting. I was thinking the same thing.

Parody doesn'

Tue, 06 May 2008 22:36:54 -0000

On article: You be the Judge: Vuitton and Darfur
Comment by: thewhimsytrove

Parody doesn't have to be funny-- it can be highly satirical and downright nasty. Which is probably why LV is having a hissy fit over Plesner's work. I have no idea what Danish law covers when it comes to parody. As for confusion, noone even glancing at Plesner's pic would be remotely confused, since clearly she is using LV's look-- to make a point. But she is not marketing a fake LV product. Even she made the actual bag depicted I don't know if LV would have a case, since she didn't use the LV logo at all. They certainly couldn't get her for counterfeiting. If LV was smart they would have contacted her, said Hey, how can we contribute to the cause? and gotten involved. Then perhaps she would have stopped using a LV bag look-alike and moved on to Prada.

If you look a

Tue, 06 May 2008 21:36:04 -0000

On article: You be the Judge: Vuitton and Darfur
Comment by: haptotrope

If you look at the logo on the bag carefully, it is not an LV, but an SL... I think that may save her tukus. But if she wanted to seriously make the statement, she should take an authentic LVbag to Darfur, bring a Chihuahua, and take and original photo. And bring some medical supplies while she's at it.

Minority opin

Tue, 06 May 2008 21:07:55 -0000

On article: You be the Judge: Vuitton and Darfur
Comment by: dottyral

Minority opinion here. I think LV's got a case. It doesn't seem right that any ol' one can re-create your bag/logo. Isn't a parody supposed to be funny? (I believe I read that in a great book called Copyright for Artists.) The use isn't funny. It can only affect LV negatively. I think if you take the emotion out of it, it's wrong.

As much as I

Tue, 06 May 2008 20:13:10 -0000

On article: You be the Judge: Vuitton and Darfur
Comment by: puffluna

As much as I agree to the message that Simple Living is sending about where our priorities are, I worry that LV may have a case. It seems that claiming this is a parody would be one thing... but since it's hurting the company's image it may fall under a completely different category. I don't even really see the art as bashing LV as much as the lifestyle that many have taken to. Beyond that... the importance that we place on famous people. I like what Electrastar had to say. Wouldn't that have been a nice change of pace!? It makes me sad all around.

Right. The p

Tue, 06 May 2008 19:56:51 -0000

On article: You be the Judge: Vuitton and Darfur
Comment by: haptotrope

Right. The problem is not trademark infringement, but semi-sort of artistic slander. But that is the fodder of art and political statements, and this is why the images have power to make strong statements about the state of the world.

She is clearl

Tue, 06 May 2008 19:54:39 -0000

On article: You be the Judge: Vuitton and Darfur
Comment by: McYarnpants

She is clearly basing the bag in her illustration on a popular LV style, but I think she has a strong case for Fair Use since its parody. From what I know about copyright law, in the end, it all comes down to whether LV's lawyers can prove that Plesner is causing them harm (financial or otherwise) with this parody. What I do find odd is people's reaction to LV because they're a big company trying to protect their designs. They have just as much right to protect their designs and intellectual property as everyone else does. Their designs are well-known and easily recognizable. It's what they count on. I don't blame them trying to protect their image. I don’t know their business practices, but making popular luxury goods doesn’t make you a “bad guy”. The laws are there to protect everyone.

I can't reall

Tue, 06 May 2008 19:45:22 -0000

On article: You be the Judge: Vuitton and Darfur
Comment by: Electrastar

I can't really contribute to the legal debate (daaammmmmnnnn I wish i'd taken that IP class back in law school!), but I feel if the LV lawyers had thought about it 2 seconds longer, they'd have taken another course of action. LV usually likes to be associated with comtemporary artists (that very same motif was actually designed, if i'm not mistaken, by japanese artist Murakami). Taking this to court is stressing the artist's statement and giving LV an even worse rep; twisting it so they could've been positively associated with the artist's work would have given them enormous publicity - and more $$ than they would have ever lost with this "infringement".

It very clear

Tue, 06 May 2008 19:30:48 -0000

On article: You be the Judge: Vuitton and Darfur
Comment by: AuntSissysAttic

It very clear that Louis Vuitton is concerned with the negative image that this artwork gives them - not there actual intellectual property. It's not as thought the artist is knockoff bags seam-for-seam with their logo on it. I'm so fed-up with big design houses acting as tho they care about their actual designs - they sell an image and that's the bottom line - you can't copy right an image. So, if another artist wants to manipulate that image, more power to them. Also, this work makes you stop and think "Do I REALLY need to pick up that US Weekly?" Kudos to Plesner on stirring things up.

The lawyers a

Tue, 06 May 2008 19:26:49 -0000

On article: You be the Judge: Vuitton and Darfur
Comment by: thebeadedlily

The lawyers at Louis Vuitton must be bored or something. It's nothing like anything I saw on their site.

tina, that's

Tue, 06 May 2008 19:18:27 -0000

On article: You be the Judge: Vuitton and Darfur
Comment by: khphillips

tina, that's the first thing that popped in my head - parody. For sure I'd think it'd fall under that.

I think that

Tue, 06 May 2008 19:09:04 -0000

On article: You be the Judge: Vuitton and Darfur
Comment by: pixiepine

I think that she is making a strong statement, one that needs to be made. If enough people really absorbed it the message, companies like Louis Vuitton would be right to be shaking in their boots and very defensive, cuz we would all make do merrily without the wasteful brand-name industry! Yay!

man...i am so

Tue, 06 May 2008 19:08:45 -0000

On article: You be the Judge: Vuitton and Darfur
Comment by: juliebcreative

man...i am so sick of big business. they should just say...listen if you stop selling the shirt we'll donate a crapload of money to the charity...then everyone wins! The rich just keep getting richer...and the rest of us get sued by them.

I'm glad she

Tue, 06 May 2008 19:03:53 -0000

On article: You be the Judge: Vuitton and Darfur
Comment by: tinalewis

I'm glad she found an attorney to represent her for free. I don't know Danish law but under U.S. law this could be protected as parody and I don't think it causes any confusion. If I were the Judge though I would be very receptive to the argument that it could be considered offensive or slanderous to LV, putting them in a false light. Why pick on just them? If I were her I would hold off until her lawyer tells her what to do or maybe change it. She could get the same message across without using the logo on the bag. Maybe ask them to contribute to her cause in exchange for changing it up. If you go without logos and throw in a jeweled cell phone and I would get the message.