Louis Vuitton Sues Darfur Fundraiser

Article Courtesy of Torrent Freak: http://torrentfreak.com/louis-vuitto...gement-080425/

Louis Vuitton Sues Darfur Fundraiser for Copyright Infringement
Written by Ernesto on April 25, 2008
The Paris based fashion house Louis Vuitton has filed charges against a 26 year old student artist for selling posters and t-shirts of a Darfur victim, holding a designer bag inspired by a Louis Vuitton design. All of the profits had been going to charity but Louis Vuitton is still demanding massive damages.
The artist, Nadia Plesner, started a campaign to raise awareness of genocide in Darfur, and raise money for the victims. All the profits she makes from selling the t-shirts and posters go directly to the “Divest for Darfur” organization to help the victims.
Nadia told TorrentFreak: “I started this campaign because of the distorted way the media prioritizes between big and small world news. How can Paris Hilton make more front covers than the genocide in Darfur? So, I “pimped” a victim, to see if it worked. And it did!”
Her campaign indeed generated a lot of attention, but not for the right reasons. For her “Simple Living” campaign, Nadia decided to dress-up a Darfur victim with a Louis Vuitton-inspired bag, and a Paris Hilton-style accessory dog. Louis Vuitton, however, was not amused by Nadia’s creative expression, and filed a lawsuit where they are claiming over $20,000 a day, if she continues with the project.
Nadia received her first letter from the Paris based retailer on February 22th. Vuitton kindly urged her to quit raising money for the good cause, arguing that it infringes their intellectual property rights. Nadia was surprised by the letter, and decided to send a reply in which she explained that she didn’t use the exact pattern of a Louis Vuitton bag, and that the drawing simply refers to designer bags in general.
“Sometimes recognizable objects are needed to express deeper meanings, and in their new form they become more than the objects themselves – they become art,” Nadia writes in her reply. “I therefore stand by my freedom of expression - artistic and/or otherwise - and will continue my Simple Living campaign in order to raise money for the victims of Darfur.”
Louis Vuitton did not warm to her “free speech” argument, and filed a lawsuit on April 15th. Nadia told us that Louis Vuitton now demands $7,500 (5,000 Euro) for each day she continues to sell Simple Life products, $7,500 for each day their letter is published on the website and $7,500 a day for using the name “Louis Vuitton” on her website. In addition they want her to pay their lawyer costs and $15,000 to cover other expenses they have incurred in protecting their ‘intellectual property’.
Initially, the whole issue seemed to be a misunderstanding, as it looked like Nadia was trying to make money from selling the tees and posters. “In January I wrote on my website regarding the campaign, that 30% of the profits are donated to Divest for Darfur. This is not correct. It is 30% of the PRICE which is 100% of the profits,” she explained to us. However, even when the information was corrected, Vuitton didn’t back off.
Intellectual Property expert and lawyer Hans Bousie, who offered to represent Nadia without charge, told TorrentFreak that Nadia could exercise her right to freedom of expression, and her right to artistic freedom in particular. That is, if the design clearly resembles the original design, otherwise Louis Vuitton wont have a strong case to begin with.
In our opinion, Vuitton is abusing the intellectual property argument. They simply do not want to be associated with genocide and the darker sides of the world. This strategy obviously backfired. We encourage everyone to buy a poster or tee, or at least spread the word about this campaign and Vuitton’s shocking response.

This case truly disappoints me. Louis Vuitton is supposed to be a reputable company that would show support in feeding the hungry. For them to literally take food from starving AFRICAN children, leads me to believe that there is a racial scheme to this decision to file a lawsuit. They are ATTACKING a young artist who is out to support a cause, over a bag that doesn't even have the "LV" logo on it. Copyright infringement, my ass! What happened to all the people on CANAL St. and other areas known for counterfeiting EXACT Louis Vuitton replicas? Why isn't LVMH out there suing everyone individually. Furthermore, these bootleggers are profiting directly off those replicas and also, reportedly, support TERRORISM, CHILD LABOR and other inhumane acts.

To think i actually like this brand. I should use the money I plan to spend on my next bag on CHARITY! Shame on you LVMH!!!!!

Bottle Poppin.

Popularized in late '07 into early '08. The Party scene here in NYC has been booming. Everyone is on their grown, money makin', shopping on 5th Ave ishhh. Along with big spending is the concept of Popping Bottles. People are seen all over 7days7nights.com and talkofnewyork.com, among others, with a bottle of Moet (predominantly Rose), Cliquot, Korbel and occasionally you will see a bottle of the overly expensive Ace of Spades Champagne. Don't get it twisted, one can pop ANY choice of liquor in the club, champagne just seems to be more popular nowadays.

By no means is the concept of bottle popping new. It has just become quite popular among the non-rappers/ball players/corporate execs...et al. Hell I just started popping bottles in the club Summer '07 but I been drinking Moet White Star since the age of 10!!!! (ssshhhh!!!)

Bottles in the club have been going anywhere from $100 to $1300 in local night clubs. I have no problem with this concept because, if people will buy a bottle for 300% more in a club than what it goes for in the liquor store, be my guest. But when people who DON'T pop bottles carry on like it is only being done to portray a falsified social status, I have a problem.

If you really think about it ANYONE can pop bottles in the club. $100-$300 isn't impossible for the average working middle-class citizen to acquire. I haven't worked in 3 years and even I can buy my own bottles in the club. I believe it is a matter of preference, if someone feels they can afford to pop a bottle, and not be too broke to get home, so be it.

Drinking champagne does not make you better, richer or cooler than anyone. So I really feel that those of you who condemn the thought of popping bottles in the club are just HATING. You don't like the taste of champagne so you go on and on about people being broke the morning after. But if you really think about it. You're ass is buying a $12 watered down drink in and 8 oz. plastic cup! Silly? I thinks so...

I rest my case!

In the movies: Baby Mama

"Baby Mama" starring Tina Fey, Amy Poehler and other cast members of Saturday Night Live, come together to create a comedic story line of a 37 year old successful corporate woman who is unable to conceive children. Beacause of her "T-shaped uterus" Kate (Tina Fey) tries an array of methods to conceive/ adopt a child, which all end up being unsuccessful.

Not to give up too much of the movie, I'll just point out the racial, underlying themes that stood out to me in the movie.

1. There is a scene where Kate is sitting with her mother and sister and they are discussing the possibility of adoption. I wasn't really paying attention due to the fact that the beginning of movies always bore me. But my ears were sharp as a knife when I heard the mother say; "Please just don't bring home a black baby!" (I quote loosely as I don't remember the exact words) *silence*

Only a few chuckles here and there were heard throughout the audience. My jaw was still enjoying the coolness of the theatre floor as I was SPEECHLESS.

Then the mother character follows up the "joke" by saying, "I hate to see these celebrities all over TV like, 'Hey look at my black baby.' " *FLOORED* (More laughs were then heard throughout the predominantly caucasian crowd.)

2. The second, of many, racial innuendos in this stupid movie was the first speaking role of an African American character. Oscar (Romany Malco), the doorman from Kate's building is seen standing outside in his doorman's uniform with headphones on. He is listening to music, rapping loudly, cussing and galavanting like a classless negro. (The entire audience laughs) As he is standing talking to Kate, he is shown periodically opening and closing doors for WHITE people walking in and out of the residential building.

Why was he just a doorman in an expensive-looking residency. Why did he have to speak "ebonics? and why the fuck did they have him rapping and carrying on in his first scene in the movie? Im not even gonna get into the little comments he made throughout the movie about having "baby mamas" of his own. So damn stereotypical.

3. There are other subtle things in the movie that I don't care to get into.

Point in case, don't go see this movie, if you are easily offended. Kate, ends up having her own kid (after beating the one-in-a-million chance odds) due to the fact that her surrogate mother (Amy Poehler) got pregnant by her common law husband and wasn't carrying Kate's baby in the first place!!!! I know I said I wouldn't give it away but I don't want anyone to waste their time seeing it.

*smh*