![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/image.png\")
<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\nRivarol is a French weekly magazine published by \u00c9ditions Les Tuileries, known for its radical far-right and hateful views. In its January 31, 2024, issue, the magazine featured a modified \u201cMartine\u201d cover, in which only the original title was replaced with \u201cMartine reads Rivarol.\u201d The image also appeared on February 3, 2024, on the French television show \u201cStar Academy\u201d on TF1, where a dancer was holding the issue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On January 9, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against \u00c9ditions Les Tuileries to have the infringement declared and to compel its cessation. The publisher, in turn, summoned Endemol, the production company behind \u201cStar Academy,\u201d seeking compulsory intervention and indemnification.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The publisher argued that the claim was time-barred: the publication dated from January 2024, and the summons was served a year later, so the matter was no longer \u201ccurrent.\u201d Furthermore, it had removed the issue from online sales, which would have rendered the claim objectless.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The judge rejects both arguments. Pursuant to Articles 17 and 18 Judicial Code (Jud. C.)<\/a> capacity and interest are assessed at the time the action is filed, and an action for injunctive relief is not subject to any urgency requirement, so the plaintiffs were not bound by any time limit. The decisive factor is that removing the product from the market does not constitute a sufficient guarantee that any risk of repetition is objectively ruled out: that risk only disappears when the defendant is no longer able to repeat the contested act. Since \u00c9ditions Les Tuileries could have republished the image or put the issue back online, the interest remained current and the claim was admissible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On the merits, the publisher invoked the parody exception under Article XI.190, 10\u00b0 Code of Economic Law (CEL)<\/a>, which prevents the author from objecting to \u201ca caricature, a parody, or a pastiche, taking into account fair practices.\u201d The judge assesses the publication against a series of cumulative conditions derived from Belgian legal doctrine: the parody must serve a critical function in relation to the work being mocked, be an original work in its own right with a personal touch, maintain sufficient distance from the original, have a humorous purpose, and incorporate no more elements than are strictly necessary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Rivarol cover fails on all these counts. It serves no critical function with regard to \u201cMartine\u201d but rather serves a purely promotional purpose for the magazine itself. It is not an original work, as virtually all elements of the original cover were reproduced almost identically, with changes limited to the title, the featured album, the publisher\u2019s name, and the album number. As a result, the publication reproduces the illustration exactly as it appears in the original, creating a risk of confusion among the public. Finally, the judge sees no humorous intent: depicting a character aimed at young people in an extremist-oriented universe is not humorous in itself, not even for a specific readership. The judge dismissed the reference to the Charlie Hebdo cartoons as irrelevant, because those cases involved original works and freedom of expression, not an unauthorized reproduction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the absence of parody, the reproduction is unauthorized. Furthermore, the court ruled that the publisher violated the moral right of integrity under Art. XI.165, \u00a7 2 of the CEL: by associating the work with an ideology that the plaintiffs claim to reject, the integrity, honor, and good reputation of the authors have been compromised. An injunction is ordered pursuant to Article XVII.14 of the CEL, coupled with a penalty of 50,000 EUR per infringement, up to a maximum of 200,000 EUR. This measure does not constitute censorship: in this case, freedom of expression must not take precedence over the protection of copyright. The compulsory intervention against Endemol is declared unfounded, and \u00c9ditions Les Tuileries is ordered to pay damages to Endemol for bringing a vexatious counterclaim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The most striking observation is what is missing from the judgment. The judge assesses the parody against a list of five to six cumulative conditions drawn from older Belgian legal doctrine, including the requirement that the parody itself must be an original work bearing a personal stamp. It is precisely this approach that the Court of Justice has expressively rejected in the Deckmyn<\/a>-ruling. The Court ruled that \u201cparody\u201d is an autonomous concept under EU law with only two essential characteristics: imitating an existing work with clear differences, and employing humor or mockery. According to the Court, a parody does not, in fact, need to exhibit any original character of its own, other than the clear differences from the work being parodied.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The fact that the court does not mention Deckmyn is not a mere detail. The judgment bases its reasoning precisely on the condition that the Court of Justice considers incompatible with EU law. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Still, there is a good chance that a Deckmyn-compliant test would have led to the same result, albeit by a different route. Deckmyn requires imitation with clear differences; here, the cover was virtually identical, so the distinguishing element was missing. Deckmyn requires a humorous or satirical nature; the court found that this was lacking. And Deckmyn explicitly provided that the rights holder has a legitimate interest in not being associated with a discriminatory or hateful message, which is at the heart of this case. The weakness of the judgment therefore lies not in the outcome but in the reasoning chosen: a correct application of the EU legal framework would have supported the same injunction, with a stronger foundation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The ruling illustrates that unauthorized reproduction and an infringement of the moral right can coexist. Furthermore, even if the parody exception had applied in this case, it does not cover a violation of moral rights: the author\u2019s right to object to any alteration that damages his honor or reputation remains intact regardless of the exception. The association of a child-friendly work with an extremist publication touches upon the personality rights aspect of copyright, which is distinct from the mere monopoly on exploitation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For authors and publishers of well-known visual works.<\/strong> Anyone who discovers that their work is being used in a context that damages their reputation has two legal remedies at their disposal: infringement of exploitation rights and violation of the right to moral integrity. The mere fact that the infringer has withdrawn the work from circulation does not affect the standing to sue, as long as a recurrence cannot be objectively ruled out. An injunction therefore remains justified, even a year after the events, and can be coupled with a penalty payment. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For anyone who wishes to invoke the parody exception.<\/strong> The bar is set high. A virtually identical reproduction with only a changed title does not qualify: there must be genuine imitation with clear differences, a humorous or satirical intent, and no risk of confusion. A purely promotional or commercial purpose undermines the exception. And even a successful parody does not provide a free pass if its use infringes on the author\u2019s moral rights, for example, through association with a reprehensible message.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For parties to the proceedings.<\/strong> Anyone who involves a third party in compulsory intervention would be well advised to carefully assess the grounds for liability. Carelessly summoning a party that clearly played no role in the infringement may result in a ruling of vexatious and reckless litigation and an increased award of litigation costs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Can I use a well-known comic book character or children's book character for a parody?<\/strong> Can an author take action against the use of his work in a political or ideological context that he disapproves of?<\/strong> Is it still possible to file an injunction claim long after publication?<\/strong> The judgement confirms that the parody exception in Belgian copyright law <\/a>has a high threshold, and that a virtually identical reproduction of a protected work\u2014especially in a context that damages the author\u2019s reputation\u2014falls outside that threshold and, moreover, infringes the author\u2019s moral rights. The weakness lies not in the outcome but in the reasoning, which the European Deckmyn case law fails to mention. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\nThe ruling<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The procedural interest remains current<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Not a valid parody<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Violation of moral rights and injunction<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Legal analysis and interpretation<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The judge is applying a test that the Court of Justice had already rejected in 2014<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The result would likely have been the same with the Deckmyn test<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The convergence of exploitation rights and moral rights<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Specifically, what does this mean?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
That is possible, but only within strict limits. The Court of Justice accepts parody when an existing work is imitated with clear differences and the purpose is to be humorous or to mock. An almost identical reproduction without a humorous intent falls outside the exception and remains an infringement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Yes. In addition to the property-based prohibition, the author has a moral right to integrity that allows him to object to alterations or associations that harm his honor or reputation. That right remains in effect even when an exception, such as parody, applies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Yes. Capacity and interest are assessed at the time the summons is served, and an injunction does not require a showing of urgency. As long as the infringer can repeat the act, the interest remains current, even if the publication has since been withdrawn from the market.<\/p>\n\n\n\nConclusion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n