Call us today0800 160 1298

Advantage Litigation

Welcome to Advantage Litigation Services. We provide affordable access to commercial litigation.

  • Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.
  • Categories
    Categories Displays a list of categories from this blog.
  • Tags
    Tags Displays a list of tags that have been used in the blog.
  • Bloggers
    Bloggers Search for your favorite blogger from this site.
  • Team Blogs
    Team Blogs Find your favorite team blogs here.
  • Login
    Login Login form

European Copyright Law: Parody Addressed by Court

Posted by on in Litigation Funding
  • Font size: Larger Smaller
  • Hits: 2434
  • Subscribe to this entry
  • Print

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has recently handed down its full opinion in Case C-201/13 Deckmyn, and in doing so has not only defined what constitutes a parody, but has also given copyright owners the right to demand their material be disassociated with a work of parody in certain circumstances.



The national proceedings concerned an interpretation of a well-known 1991 Belgian comic book cover, which was reproduced and then distributed to the public by a far-right political party, Vlaams Belang. The reproduction illustrated the Mayor of Ghent throwing gold coins to immigrants, mimicking one of the characters from the comic.

The original work’s right holders objected to the use of their image and successfully obtained an interim injunction to prevent further distribution of the later work. The defendant argued that their use of the image fell within the Belgian exception for parody, caricature and pastiche under the Belgian Copyright Act 1994, and additionally under Article 5(3)(k) of the InfoSoc Directive (2001/29/EC). The Brussels Court of Appeal referred the case to the CJEU for clarification on the law.  

Ruling of the CJEU

The referring Court had set some of its own conditions considered necessary to define parody, such as: a parody should display an original character of its own; could be attributed to a person other than the author of the original work; and relate to the original work or mention the source of the original work. The CJEU rejected all of those points, holding none are necessary to constitute a parody.  

In fact, all the Court held essential to form a work of parody are two simple characteristics: the work must ‘evoke an existing work while being noticeably different from it’ and it must ‘constitute an expression of humour or mockery’.  

However, the Court was also asked to make judgment on the exceptions found in the InfoSoc Directive. Regarding this issue, the Court has potentially limited the freedom of expression rights of those who wish to create parodies, in favour of the rights owners of the original works, but importantly only when the parody conveys a discriminatory or unsavoury message.  

The Court stated that: “the application of the exception for parody … must strike a fair balance between, on the one hand, the interests and rights of authors and other rights holders and, on the other hand, the freedom of expression of the person who wishes to rely on that exception”.

Therefore, in such circumstances where a parodist creates a work would could be considered discriminatory, the owner of the original work may be able to argue it has a legitimate interest in disassociating itself with the damaging parody and it’s discriminatory message.  


Although the provisions under the InfoSoc Directive must be applied consistently throughout the EU, national courts have the power to interpret the Deckmyn ruling, and as a consequence, may reach different conclusions on the balancing act required between the interest of rights holders and the freedom of expression.  

A parody exception will be introduced into UK copyright law on 1 October 2014 for the first time. Clearly, an exception for parody being implemented into UK law is a positive thing for those wishing to create such works. But the fact the new provisions will still be subject to the UK’s own fair dealing test on top of the new discrimination test laid down in Deckmyn means all is not lost for copyright owners wishing to protect their original works from more unsavoury versions.  

UK Intellectual Property Dispute & Litigation Funding

Whilst intellectual property litigation is conducted in specialist courts across the United Kingdom (UK) and Europe, enforcing an intellectual property right such as Copyright, trademarks, patents, designs and trade secrets or defending an action for infringement doesn't need to be prohibitively expensive. Advantage Litigation Services have the skills and expertise to help you find an expert IP lawyer as well as a way of funding the IP litigation process. To discuss your contractual dispute today, please call 0800 160 1298 or click here to see how we can help.

Get in touch

  1. Your Name(*)
    Please let us know your name.
  2. Your Email(*)
    Please let us know your email address.
  3. Company Name(*)
    Please write a subject for your message.
  4. Your Phone Number
    Invalid Input
  5. Message(*)
    Please let us know your message.
  6. Anti-Spam, please enter the characters shown
    Anti-Spam, please enter the characters shown
    Invalid Input

Latest News

  • Following recent Supreme Court rulings in two professional negligence cases, the Court has outlined a “wholly new legal roadmap” for professional negligence claims made in England and Wales. As a result, the Professional Negligence Lawyers Association (PNLA) have said that existing claims will now need to be reviewed, stating that “for many there could be a substantial impact on the likely chances of success and the assessment of financial loss”.The cases in question are Khan v Meadows [2021] and Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton UK LLP [2021]. The first case centred on whether a medical expert, who failed to diagnose that a mother carried the haemophilia gene, was liable for the costs associated with her son’s autism as well as his haemophilia, whilst the second case concerned whether accountants Grant Thornton were liable for the costs of a building society... Read More

  • A recently failed business claim that was dismissed at court has once again highlighted the many pitfalls and legal complexities facing litigants in person (LIPs – that is, individuals taking legal action without professional representation from a solicitor or barrister). The claim in question - Daly & Anr v Ryan & Anr. 2021 - concerned an individual businessman who had a costly judgment entered against him simply because he had repeatedly failed to abide by the rules. Read More

  • Latest statistics from the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), who are responsible for the regulation of solicitors and law firms in England and Wales, confirm what many in the profession have been predicting for a while; that law firms are accelerating the consolidation process as they begin to embrace new ways of working. Read More