Copyright Parody Cases And Moral Rights.
Copyright Parody and Moral Rights
Conceptual Framework
Parody
A work that imitates an existing work for humour, criticism, or commentary
Usually protected under:
Fair use (US)
Fair dealing (India, UK)
Statutory parody exception (EU)
Moral Rights
Personal rights of the author independent of economic rights
Include:
Right of attribution (paternity)
Right of integrity (to object to distortion, mutilation, or derogatory treatment)
Core Conflict:
Parody often requires distortion or ridicule → may clash with author’s moral right of integrity.
1. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music Inc. (1994, United States)
Facts
Rap group 2 Live Crew created a parody of Roy Orbison’s song “Oh, Pretty Woman”.
Acuff-Rose (copyright owner) sued for infringement.
Parody used the opening bass riff and lyrics but altered tone and message.
Legal Issues
Whether parody constitutes fair use
Whether commercial parody can be protected
Whether distortion violates the author’s moral interests
Decision
US Supreme Court held the parody was fair use
Commercial nature alone does not negate fair use
Parody must conjure up the original to make its point
Moral Rights Aspect
US law offers limited moral rights protection
Court prioritized freedom of expression over author’s integrity concerns
Significance
Leading authority on parody as fair use
Moral rights do not override parody in US law
2. Deckmyn v. Vandersteen (2014, Court of Justice of the European Union)
Facts
A political group used a famous Belgian comic character in a parody image.
The heirs of the original author claimed the parody distorted the work and conveyed racist undertones.
Legal Issues
Definition of parody under EU law
Balance between parody exception and author’s moral rights
Whether parody can harm the author’s reputation
Decision
CJEU defined parody as:
Evoking an existing work
Being noticeably different
Expressing humour or mockery
However, parody must not violate fundamental rights, including dignity and integrity
Moral Rights Aspect
Strong recognition of author’s right of integrity
Courts must balance freedom of expression vs. moral harm
Significance
Most influential EU ruling on parody
Moral rights can limit parody if it causes reputational harm
3. Ashdown v. Telegraph Group Ltd. (2001, United Kingdom)
Facts
A newspaper published a satirical version of a confidential political document.
The author objected, claiming distortion and reputational harm.
Legal Issues
Whether parody/satire qualifies as fair dealing
Whether distortion violated the author’s moral rights
Decision
Court allowed limited parody but restricted excessive copying
Emphasized that satire must not replace the original work
Moral Rights Aspect
UK law strongly protects integrity rights
Parody is allowed but derogatory treatment is actionable
Significance
UK courts adopt a restrictive approach
Moral rights act as a check on parody
4. Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India (2005, India)
Facts
Sculptor Amar Nath Sehgal’s mural was removed, damaged, and stored improperly by the government.
Although not a parody case, it is the leading moral rights authority in India.
Legal Issues
Scope of moral rights under Section 57 of the Copyright Act
Whether distortion or destruction violates integrity
Decision
Delhi High Court held that moral rights survive even after transfer of copyright
Any distortion or mutilation affecting the author’s honour is illegal
Relevance to Parody
Sets strict standards for integrity rights in India
Parody that ridicules or distorts may violate Section 57
Significance
Indian courts strongly protect author’s dignity
Parody in India faces higher legal scrutiny
5. R.G. Anand v. Delux Films (1978, India)
Facts
A playwright alleged his work was distorted in a film adaptation.
While primarily a copyright case, it touched on treatment of original expression.
Legal Issues
Idea–expression dichotomy
Whether transformation amounted to infringement or distortion
Decision
Court allowed adaptation as long as basic idea differs
Excessive distortion affecting author’s reputation could attract moral rights claims
Moral Rights Aspect
Implied recognition that derogatory transformation is impermissible
Significance
Forms basis for assessing parody and adaptations in India
6. Snow v. Eaton Centre Ltd. (1982, Canada)
Facts
Sculptor Michael Snow’s artwork of geese was decorated with Christmas ribbons by a shopping mall.
Artist claimed the modification distorted his work.
Legal Issues
Whether modification violated moral right of integrity
Whether public humour justified alteration
Decision
Court ruled in favour of the artist
Even well-intentioned alteration violated integrity
Significance
Strong affirmation of moral rights supremacy
Parodic or humorous alterations may still infringe integrity
7. Hustler Magazine v. Moral Majority (1986, United States)
Facts
Hustler published a parody advertisement mocking a religious group.
Plaintiffs claimed reputational and moral harm.
Legal Issues
Parody vs. defamation
Freedom of expression
Decision
Court upheld parody as protected speech
Emphasized that parody must not be taken literally
Moral Rights Aspect
Again shows limited moral rights protection in US law
Significance
Reinforces US preference for free speech over moral rights
Comparative Legal Position
| Jurisdiction | Parody Protection | Moral Rights Strength |
|---|---|---|
| United States | Very strong (fair use) | Weak |
| European Union | Strong but conditional | Strong |
| United Kingdom | Moderate | Strong |
| India | Narrow parody defence | Very strong |
| Canada | Limited parody | Very strong |
Key Legal Principles Emerging
Parody must evoke but not replace the original
Distortion for criticism is allowed, but not degradation
Moral rights can override parody in India, UK, and EU
US law prioritizes free speech over integrity rights
Reputational harm is central to moral rights analysis
Conclusion
Parody is a protected form of expression, but not absolute.
Moral rights act as a legal boundary, especially in jurisdictions like India and Europe.
Courts apply a balancing test between:
Artistic freedom
Social commentary
Author’s dignity and reputation
RELATED Blog
comments