mct16:
The judge however accepted that it was a parody
I've got to be honest and say, I'm interested that the case won on this point, as I can't actually see what's a parody about this...?
The definition of "parody" that I've seen is, "An imitation of the style of a particular writer, artist, or genre with deliberate exaggeration for comic effect".
It's true it meets part of the definition of parody - imitating styles - but is the effect comic...?
There's no particular reason that I can discern why placing characters from Hergé into Hopper makes a particular point; it just seems to be a juxtaposition without a purpose.
I'd have been more prepared to accept that it was a satire of Tintin's boy-scout image, had it been done in Hergé's style, but the additional use of a Hopper scene, which the artist has to alter in tone to his purpose, seems to me more a sign that the artist just wanted to show he can imitate styles, than that he was making a significant point.