Fashion conglomerate Louis Vuitton is suing 26 year old Nadia Plesner for using a LV look-alike handbag on a t-shirt and poster she designed to call attention to tragedies in Darfur. All the proceeds are donated to the charity "Divest for Darfur."
Constant media attention given to insignificant topics motivated the independent artist's "Simple Living" pieces. She explains on her website:
My thought was: Since doing nothing but wearing designerbags and small ugly dogs appearantly is enough to get you on a magasine cover, maybe it is worth a try for people who actually deserves and needs attention.
Louis Vuitton caught wind of the campaign and sent Nadia a cease and desist letter. She declined and responded: "Sometimes recognizable objects are needed to express deeper meanings, and in their new form they become more than the objects themselves – they become art."
Do you think less of LV for trying to stop a good cause, or is the company justified in defending its brand against an unfair connection to genocide? Should the law provide Nadia the freedom to express her outrage, and make money for charity while she's at it?