Wow thats pretty powerful! Good for her!

I think LV suing makes them look worse, and I'm assuming they're doing it because this casts a shadow on the brand... however, if they made a donation to Darfu efforts instead, they could probably make people forget about the shadow a lot faster and maybe even make their brand look better!

I think she should have gotten permission, but now she has a lot of press, so maybe it worked out for the best.

seriously? does LV have nothing better to do? they should be making a huge donation instead of suing the artist.

Cabaker, I agree with you completely. And LV should be embarrassed to be taking such a petty line on the matter.

Well the question is, would they be suing if it was attached to a happier organization, maybe like Make A Wish or something?

I dunnnoooo....

Whoa Jude! You and I agree! Yay!

my mother always said you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar...

That seems to be the less of the decade actually.

old news. Apparently they don't even really have a case but are just trying to scare her thinking she'll have to pay for lawyers and what not.

While I think the image is interesting, I think the same effect could have been had with just a handbag that was anonymous. Picking out one brand like that is a little pretentious and presumptive. I could see where LV would be made about that...

I mean imagine you own a business and you try to be ethical and create products using good factories and workers, and then all of a sudden you're product is plastered on some social commentary piece that is mocking materialism and you have no real blame for the problem it's advocating (darfur).

Haha, cabaker!

You know, if LV is going to sue for this image, Paris Hilton should as well.

I agree with you, cabaker, the better thing to do would be to commit some company effort to the cause in a public way, making them look less bad and possibly having her reconsider which designer bag most represents that lifestyle she is deriding.

I think they would have sued not matter what. Name brands do not like having their mark used without permission, no matter what the topic.

We had that problem frequently in art school.

well, it first made me wonder what LV does that hurts starving African children. Clearly, they haven't done anything that we know of. So although it seems petty, I think it makes a huge impact on their brand. I think they have a right to pursue it.

I have a question for Nadia though. what did small ugly dogs ever do to YOU? geez.

i agree with all of you.

That piece of art did exactly what the artist intended - to raise awareness of the pettiness we focus on and bring attention where its really needed.

Besides, there aren't many other luxury bags that are so recognizable as a Louis Vitton. I doubt it would have the same effect if it were a Prada or Balenciaga bag because it's not as widely recognized by people.

But don't you think a simple anonymous handbag and a dog would still be like, "Oh yeah that's materialism."

And not to sound too defensive of LV, but as someone in the arts, if I create something, and someone uses it for a cause that I don't agree with, I would be very upset. So maybe LV is not upset about her using it to create awareness over Darfur, but if they do not threaten her with lawsuits it could leave the door open for people to use their trademark for other causes they do not agree with.

yeah, sy, I think she could have accomplished the same thing with a little dog and a fancy bag. what if she had just done Burberry? the company that uses the same butt ugly plaid for everything they make, and charges a load of money for it? sorry, i just hate that pretentious plaid.

Sy, i think that image represents the Paris Hiltons of the world and behind that, the public's fascination with those people instead of focusing on major problems like Darfur.

i think there was a car commercial where they had a Paris look-a-like almost get hit by a small SUV because she was so oblivious to everyone but herself (of course the brakes worked perfectly and stopped just short of hitting her). So yes, i think that image is valid to use as symbolic of our love of materialism.

I also noticed it says "simple living" so maybe the E Channel will slip in a "Simple Life" lawsuit.

I like the Burberry patter on scarfs, but I don't care if it is Burberry or not, I just like the plaid.

I'm not condemning the artist on creating this image. All I am saying is that she should have used better judgment when it comes to using a trademarked item in it without permission.

I'm also saying the same affect could have been had using a handbag in general, not necessarily a recognizable brand. We would all still get the idea.

Jude C...Paris Hilton thinks any type of exposure is good exposure...so she might like this image

anyway, i think a Burberry would have pissed that company off as well. i can see how a company would not like their image associated with something like Darfur but its more about the symbolism behind it and i doubt they see it like that.

Zeze you need an avatar!

Jude - Oh if ONLY we could sue Paris!

Cine I see your point...

Kris I like Burberry! But not the obnoxious plaid bags, but I don't like any bag with a logo all over it, it so tacky. I did however see a Burberry plaid miniskirt that I wanted SO BADLY... that was 700 bucks... le sigh!

but do you see what I'm trying to say nica?

i do want to add that i LIKE her artwork. i think it makes a great point. I just agree with Sy that she could have used better judgement. or listen, if you're going to use a brand name in your artwork, don't do such quality, clever artwork. if it was crappy, maybe no one would have noticed.

maybe the problem is that she's using it for monetary gain, nonprofit monetary gain but still... what if she just made this and didn't do anything with it, i don't think there would be an issue.

i see your point Syako but i love it when artists act subversively and stick it to the man.

sure she could have used better judgement in copyright imagery, but where's the fun in that???

my problem with burberry is just that it's not the cutest plaid in the world, and it's just a statement. LOOK! look what I can afford.

My friend got me a bridesmaid gift recently, which was a $40 something dollar Coach keychain/wallet. It's the first Coach thing i've ever owned and I'm like "she paid $48 for this thing?" it's cute, and I used it... i just never would have purchased it!

don't get me wrong, I like some luxury things, just subtle things. I have one of those Longchamp bags that is kind of canvas-like with leather straps. LOVE it.

Cabaker, if there was no monetary gain, then I think they can still sue. If she just had it hanging in her room, then they could not. Once something is made public is when the problems arise.

I just think it's easy to play the "i'm a poor college student" card and try to get away with things you know you shouldn't be doing. Especially since cine said that at art school they were warned of these things, I find it hard to believe she's never heard of copyright or trademark infringement.

Cabaker you're right, I do!

I'll try to come up with something this weekend.

Feel free to offer any suggestions, brownies, muffins, cookies...

zz this should be your avatar

get it? zzzzzz

The problem nica, is that what if someone does it back to her? I don't think she would like it very much.

I think artists should respect eachother.

Who is that in your avatar?

hmmm...what if this is some made-up stunt involving LV and the artist to bring more attention to Darfur? :sneak-evil:

wait, let me do it again -

Doubt it. I just don't see any brand getting behind this one in that way...

Yea subtle luxury is a lot better... plus there are so many knock offs that if I see someone unkempt with an expensive bag I automatically assume that its fake! haha!

Zeze, how about an avatar that says "I ♥ cabaker27!" ???

hey Cine, my avatar is an old concert photo of Robert Plant and Jimmy Page of the most awesome group ever - Led Zeppelin!!!!

Sy, trust me. She has heard of it. You take classes in Entertainment law, which covers all aspects of art. And if you don't have that class, it is still beaten into your head.

Thats Led Zepplin in your avatar right Nica???

Geeezzz Cine, get with it!!

I assumed that was so. I mean, heck, they even teach us that in Journalism/advertising curriculum.

Syako, I love it!

The funny thing is I never sleep, I think I have slept a total of 15 hours this entire week!

That is what I thought! They are my most favorite band!

Ok girls time for lunch good luck zz.

Weird how many celeb philanthropists or so called philanthropists rock LV and moan about Darfur yet their douchebag of a brand wants to b!tch about something like this.

Listen cabaker. Don't you start with me!

but seriously Syako and Cine. I can dig what you're saying and yeah, i'll give you credit for that one. However, even if LV is still technically in the right, they are the one that looks bad in all of this.

My brother is a professional musician (guitarist) and i would be super pissed if someone took his music without giving proper credit. in fact, i broke it off with this guy i was seeing because he didn't think dj's had to pay royalties to artists if they used their music in remixes. Why? Because the dj had spent time and energy "creating" that new song. BULL SH*T!!!! So i walked away and started talking to another guy.

LV should be honoured she's using their frackign bags to brig awareness to an international hotspot or international area of shame. If I was an LV person I would suck the publicity dry and trump up our philanthropic efforts either way most people will read this and think what a bunch of morons.