Tintin Forums

Moderator Action: Combining two consecutive posts

Hi,

Apologies if this has been discussed in previous posts, I ran a search and although there are close aligning topics, don't think this has been properly discussed.

I was re reading the fantastic article by Luke Davies in the Sydney Morning Herald which featured on Dec 3rd-4th 2011.

On the cover there's a striking picture which shows Tintin, Snowy and Luke hiking through which I presume is the Royal Botanical Gardens which over looks Sydney. Our famous Opera House and Harbour Bridge feature prominently in the background!!
At the top of the picture the famous Tintin/Snowy banner strip runs across the page, as far as I can see this strip is directly copied from the original books. The only difference being the change in title - The Adventures of Tintin in Sydney - quite clever!
This picture and the actual article has since been linked in another forum topic if anyone wishes to read it.

At the bottom of the pic there is a comment "with apologies to Hergé".

My question is how can newspapers be allowed to publish these images like the original strip as well as draw up completely new pictures to highlight an article?
By running such stories, newspapers are indeed making profit from this due to interest from the public and fans alike.

Has Moulinsart given them permission based on the fact the new movie is being discussed to some degree?
Is there a special clause which allows public press to create drawings in association with featured stories?
Do newspapers pay Moulinsart a fee to let this happen?

I know if I drew my own drawings and started publishing them I would be in a world of trouble!!

Sorry if it sounds like a dumb question, the answer is probably very simple but has always puzzled me to a degree.

********************

Hey All,

Apologies in 'bumping' up this thread but I'm pondering why this question has not had a debate as yet..

Does anyone know or are we simply quietly contemplating?
As said, the images in the newspaper were designed specifically for the above article, how is this allowed/approved?

Moderator Note: As with all topics, while you may wonder why it hasn't been debated, it really isnâ't right to "bump" it - that suggests that you think it is more important than other subjects which others have taken up.

Possibly it is't as fascinating a topic to others as it is to you, or perhaps (and more likely) nobody felt that they had anything to contribute.

It's different if you find out answer, and wish to share your findings - that's helpful; however, if everyone started bumping their threads to get them back to the top, nobody would be able to usefully follow a conversation, and we therefore avoid it as a tool to get attention.

In this case it has led to a response, but in fairness to others, please avoid repeating such actions in the future.

The Tintinologist Team

The online version of the article can be found here, but there does not appear to be an illustration anything like you described.

I'm referring to specific drawings/art that featured in this news report.
Perhaps the on line version does not feature the pictures?
The print version certainly did.

Regarding the art depicted, I'm asking how is this allowed seeing that they have replicated the Tintin drawings for an article?

You're really only going to get an anwer to this by asking the paper or Moulinsart; otherwise it will just be speculation.

There's possibly some lee-way under the accepted use of parody in press illustrations to begin with; the use of characters, likenesses, logos, trademarks etc. to make an editorial point is a plank of freedom of the press.
The extent to which this goes is open to interpretation, and papers will often go further than might be otherwise allowed; however, the party upon whose rights they have trampled may be willing to accept it if the intention is bneficial to them, or there is already some reciprocity in place (such as getting a positive, multi-page feature which has been published internationally out of it).

The formula "With apologies to..." is often used by artists, especially with works for publication, to acknowledge that a source, recognizable to the reader, has been taken as a basis for the new work, and suggests that it is "stolen", but that the second artist is paying an homage to the original.

You also have to bear in mind that the stipulation about no new Tintin after his death made by Hergé was by way of a request; his widow (in whom the rights to Tintin rest) has the legal right to grant permission as she sees fit.
She also has oversight of the Studios, the charitable foundation which exists to promote the works of Hergé - if it is beneficial to the activities of the Studios, and not derogatory of the legacy, there's every chance that they'd agree to such a promotion, or at least, not actively block it.

Now that is a very interesting piece of information indeed (and might be worthy of a little investigation)

I'm not certain what there is to be investigated, nor what sort of investigation would be needed, or how it would be executed?

It would seem intrusive to me just to nose in on a decision which isn't really our business, one way or the other.

I don't see this is much of an issue myself.
I've seen Tintin being used in cartoons, or strips as a parody, or to illustrate a point hundreds of times.
For example, there are a few on the British Cartoon Archive database where Tintin has been used in a 'gag', or 'pocket' cartoon.
There are also lots of Australian cartoons that feature Kevin Rudd as Tintin.
As jock says, there is always some allowance under fair use of parody. The illustration to the magazine article mentioned here is hardly the greatest execution in the world; no-one is going to think it was a new Tintin book.
And that's the other thing about these type of cartoons; they appear in newspapers, which are tomorrow's chip wrappers.
Even if Moulinsart made a big objection all they could really get is an apology. The thing has been published ages ago and it's long been in the newspaper recycling bin.

What I was getting at is that in the rules and regulations listed on Moulinsart is this:

Now, I would argue that the picture first mentioned is a sequel of the the work of Hergé (and therefore under that rule is not allowed) and yet at the same time, Jock mentions the piece of information I quoted and that is the investigation.
Which is correct and by association, can sequels and adaptations be permitted?

Sorry Harry, I don't know whether you've seen the original illustration to which Rodney refers, but I can't see how on earth anyone could think it was a sequel. It's just a parody of a Tintin book cover used as the cover to the Spectrum magazine which contained the article. I think to regard this as a 'sequel' might be stretching the definition somewhat...

To be honest, I've still not got a proper hold on what you think can be "investigated".

The fact that a newspaper has printed a picture can be established straight off; whether or not Moulinsart granted permission, or - as Harrock suggests - the newspaper took it as an opportunity to make a parody (as papers are wont to do) is really between the paper and Moulinsart, and not really an issue for us to pursue.

Evevn if they did do it without permission, it neither establishes a principle, negates the validity of the charter (after all, laws are set up and then broken all the time - it doesn't mean that the law is rendered invalid because of that), nor says that Moulinsart were happy about it or not.