Email Advanced Search

Title	C8 (CANAL 8) v. FRANCE
Date	09/02/2023
Country	FRANCE
Judicial Body	European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section)
Case number	58951/18 and 1308/19...
Main themes	Discrimination Homophobia Media Regulation Misogyny
Type of humor	Media Performance Sexual content stereotyping Television broadcasting
Decision direction	Other
Outcome	No violation of Article 10
Summary	Canal 8 is a French broadcaster which received a significant financial sanction by the national audiovisual regulator Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel (CSA) confirmed by the Conseil d’État, after it broadcast content on two occasions on the entertainment programme “Touche pas à mon poste” which breached regulatory obligations. On the first occasion a male presenter placed a woman’s hand on his groin whilst she had her eyes closed under the pretext of a game, and in the second the same presenter assumed a false identity using a stereotypical homosexual manner and sexually explicit language when speaking live to seven people who had called in response to an ad he had placed on a dating website. Previous to these incidents there had been a number of programme sequences which had triggered interventions by the CSA. Canal 8 applied to Strasbourg complaining violation of its Article 10 rights. The Court found no violation on the grounds that the sequences were purely entertainment, lacking in information or ideas that might contribute to a public interest debate. The respondent state therefore had a wide margin of appreciation in deciding whether it was necessary to sanction the applicant company in order to protect the rights of others. The right to humour did not mean that anything was permitted, and anyone who claimed the benefit of freedom of expression also took on “duties and responsibilities”. The Court made an interesting (and unusual) comment “[T]he programme was particularly popular with younger viewers, so much so that a considerable number of minors and young adults had thus been exposed to material which trivialised damaging portrayals of women and homosexual people.”
Link to case	https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-222892
Link to analysis	https://merlin.obs.coe.int/article/9701
Title	The Tintin Case
Date	24/11/2022
Country	FRANCE
Judicial Body	Court of Appeal Aix En Provence
Case number	RG n° 22/04302
Main themes	Copyright
Type of humor	Parody
Decision direction	Other
Outcome	Financial Sanction
Summary	From 2017 an artist manufactured sculptures inspired by Tintin and the rocket as portrayed in the original books. The artist was sued for infringement of the moral rights of the author. The artist claimed the works were original under the parody exception but the court concluded that they did not differ sufficiently to be qualified as parody and there was not specific intellectual contribution and/or questioning, nor touch of humour or even derision within the works. Therefore the work was an infringement of copyright and damages were awarded to the rights holders.
Link to case	https://www.labase-lextenso.fr/jurisprudence/CAAIXPROVENCE-24112022-22_04302
Link to analysis	https://www.macroberts.com/knowledge-hub/business-services/tintin-v-zorro-parody-copyright-and-classic-comics/
Title	Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC
Date	21/11/2022
Country	UNITED STATES
Judicial Body	Supreme Court
Case number	LLC No. 22-148
Main themes	Copyright Trade Mark
Type of humor	Parody
Decision direction	Other
Outcome	Petition for review granted
Summary	In July of 2013 VIP Products created and marketed a dog toy in a similar shape to a Jack Daniel’s bottle named the Bad Spaniels squeaker toy. It is labelled with an image of a spaniel over the words “Bad Spaniels.” The Jack Daniel’s label says, “Old No. 7 Brand Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey;” and the label on the Bad Spaniels toy replaces that phrase with “the Old No. 2, on your Tennessee Carpet.” A tag attached to the Bad Spaniels toy stated that the product was not affiliated with Jack Daniel. Jack Daniel brought a case to the Supreme Court,which presents two legal issues. The first considers if VIP’s use of the Jack Daniel’s trademark confuses consumers about whether or not “Bad Spaniels” is a Jack Daniel’s product. The second is whether “Bad Spaniels” diluted and tarnished the product goodwill and public reputation that the Jack Daniel’s company had created over the years. The petition for review is granted.
Link to case	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/2022/22-148/
Link to analysis	https://www.forhum.org/blog/dog-toys-meet-trademark-law-jack-daniels-properties/
Title	The Oversight Board Case of The Colombian Police Cartoon
Date	15/10/2022
Country	COLOMBIA
Judicial Body	The Oversight Board
Case number	2022-004-FB-UA
Main themes	Media Platforms' policy/standards
Type of humor	Cartoon Political content
Decision direction	Expands expression
Outcome	The Board overturned Meta's decision and reinstated the cartoon to Facebook
Summary	A Columbian Facebook user posted a cartoon resembling the official crest of the National Police of Colombia, which depicted three figures in police uniform holding batons over their heads and apparently kicking and beating a person lying on the ground and bleeding. The Spanish text read "República de Colombia – Policía Nacional – Bolillo y Pata", which Meta translated as "National Police – Republic of Colombia – Baton and Kick". The post was made during a time of widespread protest in the country following a police killing. The post had matched an image stored in a Media Matching Service bank which violated community standards and so was removed but the oversight board considered removal was unnecessary and disproportionate given the heightened protection of freedom of expression with regard to socio/political content.
Link to case	https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/FB-I964KKM6
Link to analysis	https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/oversight-board-case-of-colombian-police-cartoon/
Title	Rabczewska v. Poland
Date	15/09/2022
Country	POLAND
Judicial Body	European Court of Human Rights (First Section)
Case number	8257/13
Main themes	Blasphemy Freedom of Religion Insult
Type of humor	Metaphor Website
Decision direction	Expands expression
Outcome	Violation of Article 10
Summary	The applicant, a popular pop singer known as Doda, was indicted for offending the religious feelings of others through publicly insulting the Bible. She had given an interview in which she implied the Bible was written by people 'wasted from drinking wine and smoking some weed'. She argued the interview was given in a humorous and detached manner in a language full of metaphors. The applicant complains that the use of the criminal law in her case was not necessary as her statements did not amount to hate speech and that the fine – amounting to 50 times the minimum provided for by law – was particularly severe. The Court found a lack of sufficient reasons for her conviction and fine. It considered that her statements did not amount to hate speech, abusive attack or threatening public order and that Poland had overstepped its margin of appreciation. Violation of Article 10.
Link to case	https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-219102
Link to analysis	https://www.article19.org/resources/poland-blasphemy-conviction-pop-star-violates-free-expression/#:~:text=Poland.%20The%20case%20was%20brought%20by%20Dorata%20Rabczewska%2C,website%2C%20and%20widely%20reported%20in%20other%20media%2C%20
Title	TV Today Network Limited v. News Laundry Media Private Limited
Date	29/07/2022
Country	INDIA
Judicial Body	The Delhi High Court
Case number	Civil Suit (Commerci...
Main themes	Copyright Defamation
Type of humor	Media Meme Satire Website
Decision direction	Expands expression
Outcome	Injunction denied
Summary	TV Today Network which operates a number of television news channels sought an injunction preventing the online news company News Laundry Media Private Limited from broadcasting material it believed was copyrighted and defamatory. It referred to language used by News Laundry to describe TV Today as a “shit programme”, inter alia, and submitted that 90% of News Laundry’s programmes comprised of content taken from TV Today’s news channels. News Laundry argued its broadcasts were covered by the defences of fair use and truth and that they were using satire. The Court held given the nature of the arguments such a case could only be determined in a full trial, and so refused the application for an interim injunction.
Link to case	https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/TV-Today-v-News-Laundry.pdf
Link to analysis	https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/tv-today-network-limited-v-news-laundry-media-private-limited/
Title	The Oversight Board Case of Knin Cartoon
Date	17/07/2022
Country	CROATIA
Judicial Body	The Oversight Board
Case number	2022-001-FB-UA
Main themes	Discrimination Hate speech Incitement to violence Media Platforms' policy/standards
Type of humor	Cartoon Media Parody Political content Social media
Decision direction	Contracts expression
Outcome	The Oversight Board overturned Meta's decision and removed the content
Summary	A public Facebook Page posted an edited version of Disney's cartoon "The Pied Piper", captioned in Croatian with "The Player from Čavoglave and the rats from Knin" (Meta’s translation). While the entrance to the city in the original cartoon was labelled "Hamelin", the city in the post is labelled as the Croatian city of "Knin". The narrator describes how the rats decided that they wanted to live in a "pure rat country", so they started harassing and persecuting the people living in the city. Meta removed the post for violating its Hate Speech Policy, although about 40 moderators had previously decided the content did not violate this policy. In January 2022, when the Board identified the case for full review, Meta decided that, while the post did not violate the letter of its Hate Speech Policy, it did violate the spirit of the policy, and removed the post from Facebook. Later, when drafting an explanation of its decision for the Board, Meta changed its mind again, concluding that the post violated the letter of the Hate Speech Policy, and all previous reviews were in error. The post was removed.
Link to case	https://oversightboard.com/decision/FB-JRQ1XP2M/
Link to analysis	https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/oversight-board-case-of-knin-cartoon/
Title	The Oversight Board Case of Reclaiming Arabic Words
Date	10/07/2022
Country	INTERNATIONAL
Judicial Body	The Oversight Board
Case number	2022-003-IG-UA
Main themes	Hate speech Homophobia Insult Media Platforms' policy/standards Offence
Type of humor	Dark humor Media Social media
Decision direction	Expands expression
Outcome	The Oversight Board overturned the decision to remove the homophobic slurs.
Summary	An Instagram account that identified as a space for discussing queer narratives in Arabic culture posted pictures of words with captions explaining how each word could be used in a derogatory manner towards men with “effeminate mannerisms” in the Arabic-speaking world. It included the words “zamel,” “foufou,” and “tante/tanta.” The poster explained that they did not “condone or encourage the use of these words” [p. 4] but wished “to reclaim [the] power of such hurtful terms” [p.2] having themselves been the target of these slurs in the past. The post was removed and then reinstated by different moderators and on the fifth review the content was removed on the grounds that it violated Meta’s Hate Speech policy. The user appealed to the Oversight Board. The Board stated that over-moderation of speech from persecuted minority groups was a serious and widespread threat to their freedom of expression and that the poster had made it clear that they wished to challenge the use of such language and reclaim derogatory words.
Link to case	https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/IG-2PJ00L4T
Link to analysis	https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/oversight-board-case-of-reclaiming-arabic-words/
Title	Patrício Monteiro Telo de Abreu v. Portugal
Date	06/07/2022
Country	PORTUGAL
Judicial Body	European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section)
Case number	42713/15
Main themes	Defamation Respect for private life Sexual content
Type of humor	Blog post Caricature Cartoon Newspaper Parody Political content Satire
Decision direction	Expands expression
Outcome	Violation of Article 10
Summary	The applicant was a member of a political party, municipal councillor, and adviser to his party’s parliamentary group. Following a blog that he had written he was convicted and fined for aggravated defamation and ordered to pay a fine for damages to Ms. EG, also a municipal councillor. He had published three cartoons by a local artist depicting a donkey in a suit, a be-stockinged sow with blonde hair and bare breasts surrounded by naked pigs wearing CMR (Municipality of Rondônia) armbands. Ms EG lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant, the artist and the editor of the newspaper because of her portrayal in the cartoons which she considered implied she was debauched, sexually voracious and in a relationship with a colleague. The Court found that the domestic courts did not take into consideration the context of the cartoons or taken into account the Court’s case-law on political satire and thus found a violation of Article 10. There is an interesting concurring judgment in this case with regard to the stereotyping of women in politics.
Link to case	https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-217556
Link to analysis	https://strasbourgobservers.com/2022/09/14/political-satire-and-sexist-stereotypes-a-critical-insight-on-the-case-of-patricio-monteiro-telo-de-abreu-v-portugal/
Title	Shazam Productions Ltd v Only Fools The Dining Experience Ltd & Ors (Rev1)
Date	08/06/2022
Country	ENGLAND and WALES
Judicial Body	THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENTERPRISE COURT
Case number	[2022] EWHC 1379 (I...
Main themes	Copyright Intellectual property
Type of humor	Parody Performance
Decision direction	Contracts expression
Outcome	A fictional character can be an independent copyright work.
Summary	Shazam is a company owned by the family of John Sullivan who wrote the popular British Situation Comedy ‘Only Fools and Horses’. The Defendants had developed an interactive dining experience Only Fools The (cushty) Dining Experience based on the popular show and used characters, location, and catch phrases from the television series. Shazam contended it owned the copyright to the sitcom’s scripts, characters and alleged the defendants’ show amounted to copyright infringement and passing off. The defendants denied any copyright infringement and also relied upon the defences of fair dealing under the parody exception s.30A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. The Court decided in favour of Shazam and the claims for copyright infringement and passing off succeeded. It is the first time the domestic Court recognised a fictional character can be an independent copyright work.
Link to case	https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/IPEC/2022/1379.html
Link to analysis	https://www.ashfords.co.uk/news-and-media/news/only-fools-horses-copyright-case-win-sets-new-precedent

Go to View

1 2 3 4 5

[1 to 10 of 186]