Previous Moulinsart loss

The case is striking because Moulinsart ate dust shortly before trying to ban a painting that featured Tintin in an erotic setting in Hopper’s work. “A legitimate parody,” said the judge in Rennes in that case.


Not a parody

However, in this case, Moulinsart wins, and Peppone doesn’t get away with the parody or tribute argument as a defence. According to the judge, the bust is simply a copyright infringement of the Tintin creation. Predicting when something can be regarded as a permitted parody remains challenging.