Joris DeeneA drawing that reproduces a world-famous comic book character almost identically and dresses him in a Nazi uniform is not a parody in the sense of copyright. That was the ruling handed down by the presiding judge of the French-speaking Commercial Court in Brussels on October 8, 2025, in a case in which the rights holders to Hergé’s work sued a far-right weekly magazine and an artist who used characters from The Adventures of Tintin had used to illustrate their ideas. The judge rejected both the parody and the news value defenses and, furthermore, found a violation of the moral right to integrity.
The facts
The rights holders to Hergé's body of work, including the series The Adventures of Tintin, filed a cease-and-desist order against the publisher of the French weekly magazine Rivarol and against a cartoonist who published under a pseudonym both in that magazine and on social media.
Three publications were the focus. In March 2021, the artist shared an image on X of a character who bears a striking resemblance to Tintin, but is wearing Léon Degrelle’s Nazi uniform, with a caption containing hashtags that explicitly refer to Degrelle, Tintin, and Hergé. In February 2023, Rivarol four photos from the album The Black Rocks as an illustration for an article. In March 2023, the magazine published another illustration to accompany an article marking the 40th anniversary of Hergé’s death.
The defendants invoked various defenses: parody, current events, so-called political caricature, and the mere imitation of the style of the clear line. The rights holders sought an injunction against any further distribution, backed by a penalty payment.
The ruling
The chairperson made it clear from the outset that the dispute concerned copyright exclusively, not press law. It was established that The Adventures of Tintin that it is a copyrighted work, that the plaintiffs are the copyright holders, and that they had not given their consent. The debate therefore centered on the question of whether the defendants could invoke an exception.
Parody
The judge assessed the parody (Art. XI.190, 10° Code of Economic Law (CEL)), based on the two conditions set forth in the judgment Deckmyn According to the Court of Justice: the second work must differ noticeably from the existing work and must express humor or satire. Neither of these conditions was met. The reproduction of the four cartoons was a slavish copy, in which only the text was altered while the drawing remained unchanged. A sufficient distinction—an individualization of the second work—was manifestly lacking. The judge rejected the argument that this distinction arose solely from the far-right context of the magazine in which the drawing appeared: that would amount to exempting the magazine from its obligation to respect copyright solely because of its editorial line. Furthermore, there was a complete lack of humor or satire; the Tintin illustrations served a purely illustrative function with no connection to the article.
Style, caricature, and pastiche
The other defenses raised by the cartoonist also failed. An exception for political satire or for belonging to the the public domain of history does not exist in law. A caricature implies physical distortions and exaggerations, which did not occur here. Pastiche, which aims to imitate a style, did not apply here: the publication went beyond merely copying the clear line, because it shows a character who looks exactly like Tintin. Internet users can’t help but recognize the famous reporter in it, so the image unmistakably causes confusion.
Current Events
According to the chair, the news exception (Art. XI.190, 1° WER) presupposes that the work itself constitutes the subject of the news and that its reproduction is necessary to report on an immediate event. Both publications concerned a posthumous tribute that could be repeated every year or decade; they did not constitute a matter of urgent current events. Furthermore, the event being commemorated is not itself a protected work. The exception therefore did not apply.
Moral right
Needless to say, the judge found that the moral right to integrity had been infringed (Art. XI.165 §2 WER). The unauthorized reproductions and distortions of the work, used to illustrate pages promoting far-right ideas, associate Tintin with racist, fascist, and anti-Semitic statements. The rights holders are entitled to object to that association, regardless of whether only the magazine’s specific readership makes that association.
The chairperson ordered the cessation of any further direct or indirect use of the original characters from The Adventures of Tintin, subject to a penalty of 50,000 EUR per violation, up to a maximum of 200,000 EUR.
Legal analysis and interpretation
The same court, two opposing methods
The ruling is striking when compared to an earlier judgment by the same Brussels court from 2025. In that earlier case — regarding the use of an album cover from Martine by that same weekly magazine — the judge assessed the parody against a series of older, cumulative criteria from Belgian legal doctrine, including the requirement that the parody itself must be an original work with a personal touch, without mentioning the Deckmyn ruling. It was precisely that approach that the Court of Justice rejected.
In the judgment discussed here, the same court does opt for the Deckmyn test and strictly adheres to the two conditions under EU law. That is the correct approach. Since Deckmyn, parody has been an autonomous concept under EU law that may not be supplemented by national conditions, such as the requirement that the parody itself must be original. The fact that the same court applies both methods within a short period of time illustrates how deeply rooted the older Belgian doctrine of parody still is and how inconsistent the application of Deckmyn remains in case law.
The Line Between the Concept of Work and Exceptions
When applying the first Deckmyn condition—the noticeable difference—the reasoning closely mirrors the originality test. The court finds that the reproduction is a slavish copy and that it lacks individualization. That is correct, but it deserves some nuance: the “noticeable difference” in Deckmyn is not a requirement of originality for the parody itself, but a requirement that the second creation sufficiently distances itself from the original. In Deckmyn, the Court of Appeal specifically emphasized that a parody does not need to exhibit its own original character. The court remains on the right side of that line here, but the reasoning could have made it clearer that the lack of distinction is not derived from a lack of originality, but from the nearly complete reproduction.
Fair Balance and Freedom of Speech
Deckmyn requires that the application of the parody exception strike a fair balance between the author’s rights and the user’s freedom of expression. The court considers freedom of speech Here, it serves more as a concluding point than as a framework for consideration: it states that freedom of expression does not permit the use of protected works without permission. That is correct in itself, but the reasoning would have been strengthened by explicitly taking the discriminatory message into account. After all, in Deckmyn, the Court recognized the rights holder’s interest in not having his work associated with a discriminatory message. That consideration aligns seamlessly with the finding of an infringement of moral rights, but is not explicitly linked to Deckmyn in the judgment.
Specifically, what does this mean?
For authors and rights holders. The ruling confirms that the parody exception has a high threshold and that an almost identical reproduction of a protected work—especially in a context that damages the author’s reputation—falls outside the scope of that exception. Furthermore, a claim for an injunction remains possible even if the publications date back several years: as long as there is an objective risk of recurrence, there is a current interest. The fact that the infringing publications have since been taken offline does not eliminate that risk. In addition to economic rights, the moral right to integrity under copyright law provides an independent basis for objecting to an association with ideas that the author rejects.
For publishers and creators who claim an exception. An editorial or political context does not automatically make a reproduction a parody. Anyone wishing to invoke parody must demonstrate a noticeable difference from the original and a humorous or mocking dimension; merely copying a style is insufficient, as is applying that style in such a way that the original character remains recognizable. The “current events” exception can be interpreted to mean that the work itself is the subject of current events, not an anniversary or commemoration. And an exception never provides protection against an infringement of moral rights.
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
When is something considered a permissible parody under copyright law?
Since the Court of Justice’s Deckmyn ruling, two conditions suffice: the work must differ noticeably from the existing work and must express humor or satire. Older Belgian requirements, such as the requirement that the parody itself be original, no longer apply. However, its application must respect a fair balance between copyright and freedom of expression.
Can a magazine use a well-known comic book character to illustrate an article?
Not without the permission of the rights holders. An illustrative reproduction that lacks a humorous or satirical element and shows no noticeable difference from the original does not fall under the parody exception, and a birthday or anniversary is not sufficient to qualify for the news value exception.
Can an author object to the use of his work in a political context that he disapproves of?
Yes. In addition to economic rights, the author has an inalienable moral right to integrity, which allows him to object to any infringement of his work that damages his honor or reputation, including any association with racist, fascist, or anti-Semitic statements.
Conclusion
This decision confirms that the parody exception is interpreted strictly: an almost identical reproduction of a protected comic book character, without any noticeable difference and without humor or satire, does not constitute parody, and a commemoration does not in itself constitute a current event. Furthermore, the moral right to integrity provides independent protection against association with ideas that the author rejects. The strength of the ruling lies in the correct application of the Deckmyn test under EU law, which an earlier judgment by the same court had failed to do.
Dutch 
English