« The 2009 Reboot: How I’m Staying Organized | Evolation | Green Enough? The Biodegradable Credit Card »

Irony vs Idiocy in the Case of Fake for Real

The original Fake for Real game came in a box that was strikingly similar to the iconic Louis Vuitton pattern. Despite the fact that the pattern was replicated using Wingdings, a free font, the LV lawyers wouldn’t have it.

So what do you do with 2400 game boxes? Apparently in the Netherlands, you send them to specialized “destruction services“– who do exactly that (link is in Dutch).

Despite destroying the boxes, Fake for Real has some ballsy words regarding the case:

In response to accusations made by the LV lawyers, the creators of the FFR memory game have decided that – despite any future legal verdict there may be – a corporation with such low sensitivity for cultural design and artistic practice shouldn’t be granted the homage of being mimicked on the package of the FFR memory game. Luckily, there are countless other highly counterfeited brands, besides Louis Vuitton, that can be cited in the visual debate on fakeness and simulation.

The creators of the game disagree on the matter and consider it their ‘freedom of speech’ to create a debate on the visual culture that surrounds us all. The industry around the authenticity of brands is factual and a relevant cultural theme of our time. Nowadays children know more brands and logo’s than bird or tree species. For centuries artists painted trees and clouds because that is what they saw around them, nowadays they remix brands and logo’s because that is what surrounds them.

Especially for a brand like Louis Vuitton, that has so many historic connections with the art world, it is troubling to see them stretch intellectual property legislation up to a level of intolerance towards any cultural expressions regarding their brand. Are we now moving towards a society in which corporations can deeply penetrate peoples lives with their logo’s and brand strategies, while at the same time any artistic response or remixing of the same brands is prohibited because of copyright law? Now that’s called brand management folks!?