Darfurnica by Nadia Plesner Luxury french label Louis Vuitton is suing danish artist Nadia Plesner for her work Darfurnica (inspired by Picasso's Guernica). I blogged about her first diligent discussed work Simple living about 2 years ago. The artist, that now lives in Amsterdam, started a whole non-profit, altruistic project around the first painting Simple living where she screen printed the painting on t-shirts and then sent the profit of these to Darfur in Africa. What clearly upsets Louis Vuitton is the bag in the controversial picture that alludes to their Monogram Multicolore bag. So they are suing this art student of 5000 euros for each day the Darfurnica painting is hanging on exhibition in Denmark. She was adjudicated in dutch court on January 28 this year and today Wednesday, has the painting been up for 48 days. 240 000 euros! Louis Vuitton exploited a procedure called "ex parte" that intends are to stop insults of immaterial rights, like for example a shipment from China with fake LV bags. Now they're using ex parte to stop the rights of artistic freedom and the freedom of speech. Louis Vuitton is defending their trademark accordig to the law, but was this really necessary? First of all, she never copied the bag completely, it hasn't even got the same symbols or the "LV"-logo on it. Second of all, she is doing this for a good sake. I also think it's sad that artists no longer can paint or re-create trademarks without having the dinosaur company suing the shit out of them. It is completely understandable that LV is defending their trademark against made in china -bags, but they never had a t-shirt with the "Simple living" print on it. In that case Campbells and Brio might aswell sue Andy Warhol and Ford could sue Warner bros for having a Mustang in the "Bullit" -movie (If that wasn't product placement, I'm not really sure). Luckily, LV has today, March 16 2011, revoked their verdict against Nadia Plesner, now when this whole thing got too much attention in media and the Louis Vuitton company appear too be bad and avaricious. They probably realized that they will loose more money on bad publicity than lost sales due to fake purse mafia in the end. That's the hegemony of bigger companies and probably the only thing that will keep them from not bringing regular people down completely. They thought they could do whatever they wanted with their laws and lawyers without media publicity. They thought they could do a thing like this nice and discreet without looking like jerks in the end. Louis Vuitton should have taken this opportunity for some good will publicity and created a charity bag together with Nadia, for Darfur. I think it's their social responsibility in this situation. Paris Hilton would definitely buy a charity LV bag and refute this whole irony, based on girls like her, in the paintings by Nadia. That would be good for all parts.