for what it's worth, the new anna karenina manages to cover a thousand-page novel faithfully in less than two hours, while also being a genuinely great movie on its own. i feel like the reason it's not getting taken seriously is because it's gay and fabulous, which... it's very gay and very fabulous.
i love this feature. also, for a contemporaneous perspective on the album, i highly recommend the cover story that sassy magazine did on tiffani-amber thiessen around the time this came out: "[Tiffani] says that Brian's music is more important than his acting and she can see him going completely into it. He's even working on his own album. 'He's really good. People are going to be shocked to see what comes out of him. It's very different from what he's doing on the show--it's a little more expressive, with a harder edge.'" http://www.blairmag.com/blair1/sassy/tiffani.html
...and they're all sandwiched firmly within a post-modern coffin. i believe this gay enclave also includes louise lawler's "does andy warhol make you cry?" and some obtuse jean-luc godard take on western society.
1) louis vuitton is being insane.
2) some points of clarification: copyright and trademark are actually two pretty distinct bodies of law, with different purposes and different defenses. copyright deals with art--and encouraging artistic production--and the kind of "fair use" this article's referring to is a copyright defense and isn't really relevant to louis vuitton's use of trademark.
trademark is about branding, and this complaint is about trademark, not copyright. trademark has its roots in consumer protection (by ensuring that a mark indicates a consistent source), but it has, over time, been expanded to protect branding and company goodwill more broadly. what louis vuitton is complaining about here is that things like this dilute their brand image by saying "louis vuitton" and not being louis vuitton. this is pretty silly in this case--and the relatively recent addition of "dilution" as a type of trademark claim in the united states is controversial among scholars--but, for the time being, it is a valid claim in the united states.
"fair use" isn't really a defense to this, as "fair use" in trademark means something pretty different. "fair use" in trandemark means that you're using the mark to describe the product in a way that doesn't purport to speak for the company that makes the product (e.g. saying "i bought a louis vuitton bag" is fair use of the "louis vuitton" trademark).
anyway, not sure if that helps or if it's just confusing. the distinction b/w copyright and trademark isn't generally that confusing, but louis vuitton's use of trademark as central to their artistic style has done a lot to blur the lines...