## Facts

- A Belgian comic cover from the *Suske en Wiske* series (1961) showed a character scattering coins to people collecting them.
- Johan Deckmyn and an affiliated non-profit distributed calendars at a political event in Ghent (2011) bearing an image resembling that comic cover.
- In the calendar image, the original character was replaced by the mayor of Ghent scattering money; the recipients were depicted as dark-skinned individuals wearing veils or headscarves.
- The copyright holders and related exploiters sued in Brussels; a trial court ordered the defendants to stop using the image.
- On appeal, the defendants argued the image was protected as “caricature, parody and pastiche” under Belgian law implementing Directive 2001/29/EC.
- The Brussels Court of Appeal referred questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on the meaning and conditions of the “parody” exception in Directive 2001/29/EC.

## Issues

1. Whether “parody” in Directive 2001/29/EC Article 5(3)(k) is an autonomous concept of EU law requiring uniform interpretation.
2. What essential characteristics define a “parody” for purposes of Article 5(3)(k), including whether extra conditions (originality, different author attribution, target being the original work) may be required.
3. How courts must balance copyright holders’ rights against users’ freedom of expression when applying the parody exception, including when the parody may convey a discriminatory message.

## Decision

- The CJEU held that “parody” in Article 5(3)(k) is an autonomous concept of EU law and must be interpreted uniformly across Member States.
- The Court defined parody by two essential characteristics: (1) it evokes an existing work while being noticeably different from it, and (2) it expresses humour or mockery.
- The Court rejected additional requirements not stated in the Directive, including that the parody must have its own originality beyond being noticeably different, must be attributable to someone other than the original author, or must target the original work itself.
- The Court ruled that applying the parody exception requires a fair balance between copyright holders’ rights and the user’s freedom of expression.
- The Court left it to the national court to decide whether the specific image qualifies as parody and, if so, whether allowing it maintains a fair balance, including considering the rights holders’ interest in avoiding association with a discriminatory message.

## Legal Principles

- EU copyright exceptions using terms not defined by reference to Member State law are interpreted as autonomous EU-law concepts with uniform meaning.
- “Parody” under Directive 2001/29/EC Article 5(3)(k) requires:  
  - evocation of an existing work while being noticeably different; and  
  - an expression of humour or mockery.
- Member States and national courts may not add extra substantive conditions for parody beyond those essential characteristics.
- The parody exception must be applied through a fair-balance assessment between rightholders’ interests (including legitimate interests in how the work is associated) and users’ freedom of expression.
- Where the use may communicate a discriminatory message, national courts must consider the rightholders’ interest in not being associated with that message in the fair-balance analysis.

## Conclusion

The CJEU established a uniform EU definition of “parody” limited to evocation with noticeable difference plus humour or mockery, and required national courts to apply the exception only when a fair balance is maintained between copyright protection and freedom of expression, including attention to potentially discriminatory content.


Deckmyn v. Vandersteen, Case C-201/13 (C.J.E.U. 2014)