Legitimate interest in ensuring that work is not associated with a discriminatory message of a parody

03-11-2014 Print this page
IPPT20140903, ECJ, Deckmyn en Vrijheidsfonds v Vandersteen

COPYRIGHT - PARODY

 

Concept of parody must be regarded as an autonomous concept of EU law

 

"15. It is clear from that case-law that the concept of ‘parody’, which appears in a provision of a directive that does not contain any reference to national laws, must be regarded as an autonomous concept of EU law and interpreted uniformly throughout the European Union (see, to that effect, judgment in Padawan, EU:C:2010:620, paragraph 33)."

 

Essential characteristics parody: existing work being evoked while being noticeably different from it, and the constitution of an expression of humour or mockery

 

"33. that Article 5(3)(k) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as meaning that the essential characteristics of parody, are, first, to evoke an existing work, while being noticeably different from it, and secondly, to constitute an expression of humour or mockery."

 

Holders of copyrights have a legitimate interest in ensuring that the work is not associated with a discriminatory message

 

"29. Accordingly, with regard to the dispute before the national court, it should be noted that, according to Vandersteen and Others, since, in the drawing at issue, the characters who, in the original work, were picking up the coins were replaced by people wearing veils and people of colour, that drawing conveys a discriminatory message which has the effect of associating the protected work with such a message.
31. In those circumstances, holders of rights provided for in Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 2001/29, such as Vandersteen and Others, have, in principle, a legitimate interest in ensuring that the work protected by copyright is not associated with such a message."

 

Parody must strike a fair balance between the interests and rights of the holder of the creator of the work and the freedom of expression
 

"34. However, the application, in a particular case, of the exception for parody, within the meaning of Article 5(3)(k) of Directive 2001/29, must strike a fair balance between, on the one hand, the interests and rights of persons referred to in Articles 2 and 3 of that directive, and, on the other, the freedom of expression of the user of a protected work who is relying on the exception for parody, within the meaning of Article 5(3)(k).
35 It is for the national court to determine, in the light of all the circumstances of the case in the main proceedings, whether the application of the exception for parody, within the meaning of Article 5(3)(k) of Directive 2001/29, on the assumption that the drawing at issue fulfils the essential requirements of parody, preserves that fair balance."

 

IPPT20140903, ECJ, Deckmyn en Vrijheidsfonds v Vandersteen

 

C201/13 - ECLI:EU:C:2014:2132