一位法国艺术家因在系列油画中描绘丁丁形象——已故比利时漫画家埃尔热（Hergé）创作的《丁丁历险记》漫画系列的主角——被埃尔热的遗产管理公司穆林萨特（Moulinsart）起诉版权侵权。该艺术家在法国法院审结的一审诉讼中获胜（据英国《卫报》报道）。
A French artist who was sued for copyright infringement over his canvases featuring Tintin (the protagonist of The Adventures of Tintin comic series originally created by late Belgian cartoonist Hergé) has won the first round in the French courts against Moulinsart, the company representing Hergé's estate (as reported in the Guardian).
被诉的法国艺术家泽维尔·马拉布特（Xavier Marabout）的作品，以美国艺术家爱德华·霍普（Edward Hopper）的绘画作为背景，以描绘丁丁的一系列浪漫冒险历程为主题，这一混搭碰撞出了有趣的娱乐效果。然而，穆林萨特公司并不觉得有趣。
Xavier Marabout's works depict Tintin in a series of romantic adventures set against backdrops based on the paintings of American artist, Edward Hopper. The result is an entertaining mash-up; however, Moulinsart does not see it that way.
艺术家泽维尔·马拉布特的部分以丁丁为主题的混搭绘画
Examples of Xavier Marabout's paintings featuring Tintin
穆林萨特公司指责马拉布特在未经许可的情况下复制和改编了丁丁的“世界”，诉称“利用一个角色的声誉将其代入带有性暗示的环境中，实际与幽默背道而驰”。该公司的律师还补充到，埃尔热早已“解释过他之所以选择在作品中不涉及女性，是因为他认为女性不该是幽默元素。”[1]
Moulinsart accused Marabout of reproducing and adapting the world of Tintin without consent, arguing that "taking advantage of the reputation of a character to immerse him in an erotic universe has nothing to do with humour". A lawyer for the company added that Hergé, had "explained his choice not to involve women in his work, because he found that they are rarely comic elements".[1]
马拉布特的律师辩称这些画乃“戏仿”作品。他指出“版权与言论和创作自由之间存在冲突”，并诘问道“艺术家是否有权对丁丁的性生活感到好奇？”以及“艺术自由是什么？”
In his defence, Marabout's lawyer claimed the paintings are parody. He pointed to a "conflict between copyright and freedom of expression and creation", and asked "Does an artist have the right to wonder about Tintin's sex life?" and "What about artistic freedom?"
在2021年5月10日的判决中，法国雷恩法院（the Court of Rennes）作出了有利于马拉布特的判决，驳回了穆林萨特公司关于版权和精神权利侵权的控诉。
In its judgment on 10 May 2021, the Court of Rennes found in Marabout's favour, rejecting Moulinsart's complaint for copyright infringement and infringement of moral rights.
对此，马拉布特的律师评论道："法庭认可了“戏仿”作为例外的存在以及我当事人所表达的幽默意图。公平而论，这种有点奇诡的幽默感是通过将丁丁的故事与美国画家爱德华·霍普的作品内容进行混搭而呈现出来的"”。
"The court recognized the parody exception and the humorous intention expressed by my client. For justice, this humour resides in the quirky character which consists in mixing the universes of Tintin and the American painter Edward Hopper" Marabout's lawyer commented.
穆林萨特公司目前则拒绝置评，但其可在一个月内对判决提出上诉。从最近该公司在其网站上的声明来看，穆林萨特公司似乎打算上诉，理由是（它认为）马拉布特的绘画远远超出了作为版权侵权例外的“戏仿”作品的界限，构成“对埃尔热作品的改编（或擅自使用），因此不具有合法戏仿的性质”。
Moulinsart declined to comment at the time, but has a month to appeal the decision. From recent statements on its website, it appears that Moulinsart intends to appeal on the basis that (it considers) Marabout's paintings go far beyond the parody exception to copyright infringement and are "adaptations (or appropriations) of Hergé's work that do not have the character of a legal parody".
在关注案件进展同时，我们也可以考虑在英国法律的框架下该如何看待这些问题。
While we monitor the progress of the case, we can contemplate how these issues might be considered under UK law.
根据英国法律，因夸张性表达、戏仿或谐仿而构成版权侵权的例外情况
Exception to copyright infringement under UK law for the purpose of caricature, parody or pastiche
如前一篇文章所述，英国法律认可夸张性表达、戏仿或谐仿构成版权侵权例外情形的“合理使用”。此例外规定意味着，原则上可以使用版权保护材料且无需获得权利人的同意，前提是此类使用被视为构成“合理使用”。
As set out in an earlier article, under UK law there is a 'fair dealing' exception to copyright infringement for the purpose of caricature, parody or pastiche. This exception means that, in principle, it is possible to use copyright-protected material without having to obtain permission from the rights holders to do so, but only to the extent that such use can be considered 'fair dealing'.
有一些指导性意见（例如，英国知识产权局对相关问题的评论）规定了典型的属于例外情形的使用方式。然而，“合理使用”一词并没有法律定义——因此，是否构成合理使用可能在每个案件中都会有所不同，取决于个案的具体情形。
There is some guidance on use that would typically fall within the exception (see,for example, the UK Intellectual Property Office's comments on this issue). However, there is no statutory definition of the term 'fair dealing' – so, what is considered to be fair dealing will differ in each case depending on all the circumstances.
在全面评估“合理使用”时，需要考虑的一些因素包括：
作品的使用是否会影响原始作品的市场。如果作品将被用来替代原始作品，从而造成原始作品版权所有者的收入损失，那么不太可能构成合理使用。
原始作品被借鉴的程度是否合理和适当，所借鉴的程度是否在必要范围。通常，创作戏仿作品时，只会用到原始作品的一部分。
戏仿是否会对权利持有人或原始作品的作者的声誉造成损害。
'Fair dealing' is assessed globally, and some of the factors that may be considered include:
whether using the work affects the market for the original work. If a use of a work acts as a substitute for it, thereby causing the owner to lose revenue, then it is not likely to be fair.
whether the amount of the work taken is reasonable and appropriate, and if it is necessary to use the amount that was taken. Usually only part of a work may be used when creating the parody.
whether the parody will be harmful to the reputation of the rights holder or creator of the original work.
戏仿的主要特征
Essential characteristics of parody
在欧盟关于戏仿的指导性判决（Deckmyn等诉Vandersteen等，案号C-201/13）中，欧盟法院指出，戏仿的基本特征是，首先，能唤起对现有作品的记忆，同时又与之明显不同，其次，构成幽默或嘲弄的表达。法院还强调需要在原作的权利持有人和戏仿者的表达自由之间划定一个合理的平衡点。
In the leading EU judgment on parody (Deckmyn and another v Vandersteen and others, Case C-201/13), the ECJ indicated that the essential characteristics of parody are, first, to evoke an existing work, while being noticeably different from it, and secondly, to constitute an expression of humour or mockery. The court also highlighted the need to strike a fair balance between the rights holders of the original work, and the freedom of expression of the maker of the parody.
分析
Analysis
众所周知，合理使用是版权法的灰色地带。在本案中，穆林萨特公司可能会主张，马拉布特在他的系列绘画中将埃尔热的同名男主角作为主要人物，就已经使用了埃尔热原作内容的很大一部分。
Fair dealing is a notoriously grey area of copyright law. In this case, Moulinsart would likely argue that Marabout has used a substantial part of Hergé's original work by incorporating Hergé's eponymous hero as the main character in his series of paintings.
马拉布特的律师则可能会反驳这一点，并主张允许使用版权作品的例外情形——本质上就是允许他人在原作基础上构建新作品——而这正是马拉布特所做的，即将角色抽离出来并在新的背景设定和环境中描绘该角色。马拉布特自己则可能会争辩说他的画虽然模仿了埃尔热的作品但其作品因为幽默效果而与原作品已有明显差别。
However, lawyers for Marabout would likely counter this by arguing that the exception allows a reference to a copyright work - in essence, the ability to build upon it – and that this is precisely what Marabout has done by taking the character and depicting him in new settings and situations. Marabout would likely argue that his paintings imitate Hergé's work, but are noticeably different from it, for humorous effect.
考虑到这些因素，如果英国法院审理该案，也很可能认定马拉布特的使用属于例外情形（但也可能因为反对新作品对原作品进行贬损性处理而认为侵犯了埃尔热的精神权利）。对法院来说，问题的实质是如何在相关权利（即穆林萨特公司作为原作权利人的权利与马拉布特的艺术表达自由权）之间寻求一种合理的平衡。我们将饶有兴趣地等待向法国法院提出的任何上诉的结果。
Taking these factors into account, it seems there is a fair possibility that a UK court would also find that Marabout's use would fall within the exception (but it is possible it would nevertheless be considered an infringement of Hergé's moral right to object to derogatory treatment of the work). The real issue for a court would be the search for a fair balance between the rights involved, being the rights of Moulinsart as the owner of rights in the original works versus Marabout's right to freedom of artistic expression. We await the outcome of any appeal through the French courts with interest.
如果能从版权所有人处获得使用作品的明确许可，可以避免导致版权侵权的风险。当然，这种许可有时也许无法获得。版权持有人可能会明确反对戏仿者的表达，或者对他们的知识产权（正如穆林萨特公司）有保护性倾向。有趣的是，马拉布特似乎没有被爱德华·霍普作品的版权持有人追究责任，这位艺术家其他绘画作品中含有的他人原作似乎也未遭到相关版权持有人的责难——他的部分画作是将特克斯·埃弗里（Tex Avery）作品中的角色置于毕加索（Picassos）的作品之中。
Obtaining the express permission to use the work from the rights holder should avoid the risk of copyright infringement. Of course, this may not be possible. The rights holder may specifically object to the parodist's expression, or may be more generally protective of their intellectual property (as Moulinsart is known to be). It is interesting to note that Marabout does not appear to have been pursued by the rights holders for Edward Hopper's works, or works incorporated in his other paintings, some of which set Tex Avery characters in Picassos.
根据定义，戏仿是对作品带有喜剧色彩的评论，因此对该作品有进行模仿的必要。把戏仿设置成版权侵权的例外情形，目的是为了保留这种对版权作品进行模仿和评论的权利。但够不够得上这种例外情形并非总是一目了然的，如果存疑，应当去寻求专业的法律建议。
By definition, a parody is a comedic commentary on a work that requires an imitation of such work, and it is the purpose of the exception to preserve this right to imitate and comment on a copyright work. However, the ability to rely on the exception is not always clear-cut, and if in doubt, seek legal advice.
[1] 穆林萨特公司还主张本案存在侵犯埃尔热的精神权利的情形。本文并未就案件所涉的精神权利主张进行全面的讨论。
[1] Moulinsart also alleged infringement of Hergé's moral rights. A full discussion of the moral rights position in this case is beyond the scope of this article.
译者备注 Note:
请点击“阅读原文”按钮或者拷贝下述链接到浏览器以阅读本文在麦仕奇网站上发表的英文原文，原文里包含上文中带下划线的内容的出处链接。
Please click on "Read more" button or copy the link below into your browser to read the original English version of this article as published on the Marks & Clerk website, which contains links to the underlined text above.
https://www.marks-clerk.com/insights/the-adventures-of-tintin-in-an-erotic-universe-a-herge-copyright-controversy/
END
麦仕奇知识产权
1887年成立，专注国际知识产权服务，国际办公室分布:
英国： 伦敦、伯明翰、 阿伯丁、剑桥、爱丁堡
格拉斯哥、曼彻斯特、牛津、利兹
欧洲： 巴黎（法国）、索菲厄安蒂波（法国）、卢森堡
美洲： 渥太华（加拿大）、多伦多（加拿大）
亚洲： 北京、香港、吉隆坡（马来西亚）、新加坡
To be the leading provider of IP services
麦仕奇知识产权
微信：Marks-Clerk
领英：Marks&Clerk
推特：marksclerkscot
长按二维码关注