Tintin chez Hopper

Key takeaways

The painter Xavier Marabout had placed Tintin and other Hergé characters in scenes inspired by the American painter Edward Hopper. Moulinsart, which manages Hergé's rights, sued him. At first instance, the Rennes court had accepted the parody exception and dismissed the claims.

The Court of Appeal reversed that decision and ruled against the artist. The case illustrates the severity French judges can show towards transformative works using famous characters, an approach that may now be reconsidered in light of the European concept of pastiche adopted in Pelham II.

The debate concerned the conditions of parody, as the Court of Justice set them out in Deckmyn: evoking a work while being noticeably different from it, and expressing humour or mockery. The disagreement between the first-instance court and the court of appeal shows how uncertain the assessment of humorous intent remains from one judge to another.

The lesson for fan creations and video games is direct. Placing a famous character in a new universe is not, in itself, enough to establish parody, especially where the works are sold. The character remains recognisable, and that is precisely what grounds the action of its right holders.