In a win for art, an EU court has ruled in favor of Nadia Plesner in the case brought against her by Louis Vuitton for including a look-a-alike Audra style handbag in her painting Darfurnika. The ruling includes the following: "the importance of Plesner (freedom of expression through her work) outweighs the importance of Vuitton (protection of property)" - (according to a Google translation from the Dutch news story).
In her painting Danish artist Nadia Plesner includes an image of an African child holding a Chihuahua and the disputed look-a-like fashion purse. In juxtaposing images from two starkly different worlds... the world of high fashion and the Darfur nightmare of poverty and oppression, Plesner makes a powerful statement.
Darfurnika
Louis Vuitton decided to sue Plesner even though the bag in Darfurnika does not in fact replicate the design of the Monogram Multicolore, created by Vuitton art director Marc Jacobs and artist Takashi Murakami, nor does it include any logos or other descriptors tying it directly to Louis Vuitton.
LV's legal action against Plesner goes back a few years. The company sued the artist in 2008 for the use of the same image on t'shirts - part of her campaign to encourage divestment from Darfur. That lawsuit went against Plesner, mainly because she didn't contest it.
In the more recent case Louis Vuitton obtained an ex parte order against Plesner and sought a penalty of $5,000 for every day the image appeared on the artist's website. There was an attempt to prevent her from displaying the work online and in any venues in the European Union.
The use of an ex parte decision in this case was rightly objected to by Plesner since she didn't have a chance to defend herself. Her attorney released a statement that included the following:
Nadia believes the court order is a gross violation of her right to free speech and artistic freedom under section 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights...
She feels Louis Vuitton abused the ex parte procedure to violate her rights. Ex parte means that the defendant is not heard. This means that the ruling of the court is based on the view put forward by Louis Vuitton, without Nadia having a chance to defend herself...
Ex parte proceedings are meant for evident violations of intellectual property rights, for example to stop a shipment of counterfeit shoes from China. It is not meant to stifle artistic freedom and free speech.
The decision taken by Louis Vuitton to go after Plesner in the courts seems counterproductive. Making a look-a-alike handbag a reason to prosecute an artist who has dedicated her talent and time to a worthy humanitarian cause isn't exactly good publicity. Nadia Plesner has shown a high level of dedication in raising awareness about the ongoing tragedy in Darfur. The profits from her Simple-Living t'shirt go toward the effort to raise medical supplies.
If we reach a point where the clout of corporations can trump considerations such as parody and fair use in the case of a derivative look-a-like image, freedom of expression will be severely compromised. Artists will be more inclined to self-censor out of fear of litigation.
There is a certain irony in Louis Vuitton's decision to go to law in this case. As a consequence of Vuitton's high profile move the image-in-dispute has taken on even greater symbolic significance than might otherwise have been the case.
Video about Nadia Plesner and her work beneath:
Refresh the page if YouTube video is slow to load
Link also to Nadia Plesner's website - Groundswell - Nadia Plesner Foundation
