A Lonely Soul-armattoe

excesses of intellectual property and freedom of expression. Louis Vuitton vs. Nadia Plesner

(From the series "Intellectual Property as an excuse "...)

That" intellectual property protection to some they are getting out of hand is becoming more evident, but the case has become known via the twitter of Lawrence Lessig touches the summit of the grotesque.

Darfurnica Nadia Plesner

The issue is as simple as that Danish artist named Nadia Plesner produced a painting entitled "Darfurnica" , which, based on the construction of elements of Picasso's Guernica, tries to expose a series of problems and in particular the media attention on issues absolutely trivial compared to the neglect of genuine human tragedies like the situation in Darfur.

The center of the painting is occupied by an African child in his arms has a bag of Louis Vuitton Malletier SA company, namely the model "Audra"

bag is recorded European design with code as 84223-0001.

Nadia Plesner started selling t-shirts and reproductions of his work, in particular the details of the child with Louis Vuitton bag as part of a campaign to support and make visible the situation of Darfur entitled "Simple Living" (alluding to a reality show starring Paris Hilton, one of the people depicted in the painting)

In 2008 the company obtained a court decision that a Paris court said violated the rights of the design and ordered to pay a symbolic sum of 1 euro to Louis Vuitton and banned the sale and use of products that infringe the design regsitrado, under penalty of paying a fine of 5,000 euros a day for each day they fail to comply with this prohibition.

However

Nadia continued sale of these products, understanding as part of an artistic creation and the protection granted by intellectual property restiringía freedom of expression, and in May 2008 with a new requirement of company finally gave in that campaign, "Simple Living."

Well, in 2011, the artist puts his work for sale, and I mean the whole picture, at a gallery in Holland, but also used the image of the child with the bag to illustrate the entrances, as is reported selling more t-shirts and other items with that image.

Having had some impact original painting, the author uses it as a means for its exhibitions and works are recognized, but such use is not condoned by Louis Vuitton.

So the company started legal proceedings in the Netherlands, where the artist lies in claiming their rights in the design of the bag. To do so requires the adoption, as a precautionary measure, the cessation of violations, including the use of drawing in its own website and selling the work in the gallery.

While the court understands in a process of giving of interim measures can not on the merits, that if there is basis or not for use without consent of the bag by the artist, it does shows that there is a basis to warn unwanted use in "merchandising" of the artist, considering that there is a risk of irreparable damage if not interrupted, so it agrees to grant the requested action and a fine of 5,000 euros for each day the violation persists.

addition, the unprecedented decision was taken partly because it seems the author was in Denmark attending an exhibition in which he showed his work, involving even the first mini train Danish.

Here is an unofficial English translation of the court in The Hague (pdf)

In my opinion this is a case of excessive zeal on the part of the courts in propedad protection of intellectual when it is clear and no consumer can be misled about the nature of the work or not and what it represents in relation to the company of luxury, or may come to think that no one sells bags Louis Vuitton or that this company makes shirts with that image ...

brands are part of our cultural and are configured as graphic elements that allow us to associate a particular message visually, in this case the contrast between the situation of poverty in a particular place and unnecessary waste in the world of luxury, perfectly represented in this case the bag .

Brands must fulfill a social function to identify a product in the market and not to cause confusion among products from various competitors , so that consumers can make decisions. But extending its scope of protection to extremes such as this case does not lead but to be configured as an opposite to freedom of expression.

Surely if the message was positive picture on the bag the company had not taken any action, but since putting it in a negative context in relation to a major problem, wants to be untied.

And of course, the measures taken, including a ban on the box or even be confiscated items from the site of the artist seems wholly disproportionate.

if I can not think what would be the criterion of responsible central court litigation that has to do the subject, or similar, once set in motion our beloved second section ...