CJEU blocks discriminatory parodies in comic-book case
EU law must define a parody according to its every-day meaning but the parody cannot be discriminatory, Europe’s most senior court ruled today (Wednesday).
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) was ruling on a case from Belgium, where a Flemish politician had mimicked a character from a comic book called De Wilde Weldoener, produced by Willy Vandersteen in 1961.
Johan Deckmyn, a member of Vlaams Belang, a Flemish political party, had handed out calendars for the year 2011 at a New Year’s Eve party in Ghent.
The cover page featured a drawing resembling the comic’s cover image: a character wearing a white tunic and scattering coins for people surrounding it. In Deckmyn’s parody, the character was replaced by the mayor of Ghent and the people picking up the coins were wearing veils.
This prompted several of Vandersteen’s heirs and right holders linked to the Suske en Wiske (Spike and Suzy) series—which the comic was part of—to sue Deckmyn for copyright infringement.
Deckmyn argued that the work was a political caricature and therefore a parody under EU law.
The plaintiffs, however, said a parody must display originality—which, they said, was not the case here—and argued that the drawing was discriminatory.
On referral from the Brussels Court of Appeal, the CJEU was asked to clarify what constitutes a parody.
The CJEU said ‘parody’ must be defined in line with its every-day meaning, with the term’s main characteristics being to “evoke” an existing work while being noticeably different from it and to constitute an expression of humour or mockery.
It added that parodied works do not need to be original—they must only display “noticeable differences” to the mimicked work.
But the CJEU said that when applying the exception, courts must strike a fair balance between right holders’ interests and the party seeking to use the provision. Therefore, it said, if a parody conveys a discriminatory message, the right holder has (in principle) a legitimate interest to ensure their work is not associated with such a message.
The case will now return to the Belgian courts.
