Tintin Forums

Here's Moulinsart's case, though I notice that they do not mention Garcia by name.

It's not quite plain and simple, though. Generally you (and Moulinsart) are correct that you can't publish copyright material without the permission of the copyright holder. And, personally, it's a law that I strongly agree with. However, there is the legal exception of "fair use" , which does allow small extracts of copyright work to be quoted by reviewers, academics, etc, without needing to obtain permission.

If you think about it, this makes perfect sense. You wouldn't really want a situation where, for instance, newspaper book reviewers had to get a publisher's permission to quote a sentence or two from the book they were reviewing, or obtain permission to reproduce a thumbnail of the book's cover next to the review. If you had to get permission, publishers would be in the position to demand to pre-read reviews, and refuse permission to those they didn't like.

I believe that it was this defence of "fair use" that Bob Garcia used to successfully defend himself against Moulinsart in the first court case. However, Moulinsart took it to appeal and, second time around, successfully convinced the court that Garcia had overstepped fair use and published too much copyright material.

Maybe he had indeed overstepped fair use; maybe he hadn't. Without knowing the pamphlets in question, it's impossible to give an opinion. And obviously what constitutes fair use is a rather vague and subjective concept, which Bob Garcia was possibly foolish to rely on. But even if Moulinsart has won a fair judgement, you would have thought it would have been more in the spirit of Tintin for Moulinsart to have forgiven Garcia for his foolish trangression, and let him off with a warning - or a small fine if they really felt the need to send out a warning to other would-be copyright infringers. Clearly, we're all in agreement that slapping him with damages for 50,000 Euros and attempting to repossess his house to pay for it is way, way over the top, given the nature of his infringement.



If Bob Garcia's claims about child labour etc aren't true, then yes, Moulinsart has a right to be very angry. But if that's the case they should sue him for libel, and have his claims tested in open court under a libel case. It obviously wouldn't be right for someone to punish or silence what they see as a libel through a copyright-infringment case, where any claims about child labour, etc, being irrelevant to the copyright issue, would never be discussed, proved, or disproved in open court. (And it obviously wouldn't be right for us to accuse Moulinsart of doing this, so I'm not!)

So the rights and wrongs of Moulinsart's action against Bob Garcia surely have to be judged purely on the question of the copyright infringement.

It would seem that this is also about problems between the press and Moulinsart, and especially their boss Nick Rodwell. Apparently Garcia is just one of a number of journalists with whom Rodwell is at odds with. His claim (made on his blog which has since been closed) is that two journalists in particular are out to get him out of frustration: they cannot share their passion for Tintin with their autistic children.

I have an autistic-related condition and yet I share many interests with my journalist dad, such as motor racing and politics - in particular the issue of power getting to people's heads and they getting too big for their boots. There are times when the saying "quit while you're ahead" is not a bad idea.

The real issue however is why it appears that Moulinsart are trying to get the money owed to them ASAP. Why can't they agree to a compromise deal in which Garcia can pay them back over time? Don't tell me that the owners of the most successful comic icon in the world are short of cash?

Fair enough, this makes sense.. how much copyright work did Mr Garcia use? Was it a sentance, paragraph or whole chapter of work?
It seems to me that, without reading the material there may have been a considerable amount of copyright text used.
I would hazard a guess and say it must be more that a couple of sentences. Considering the length of the document and the amount of copyright used, Moulinsart may well have felt they have a justified case, however I'm only speculating having not viewed the material.

Perhaps Moulinsart wanted to set a harsh example, perhaps they have let many others off with warnings or small fines and simply got fed up (how many people have done similar acts??). Maybe people were not getting the message and they simply wanted to set up a tough stance.
Hmmm, it's becoming a bit clearer possibly the motivation behind all this, possibly revenge or pay back??

If you win a case you are entitled to receive the money the court decided on.
If I personally won a law suit I would expect the funds to paid to me asap, I would not be happy if, having winning, i would be receiving these funds over a significant time period, I would want the lump sum entitlement.
Moulinsart probably do not need extra money, I'm sure they are doing quite well but it is their legal right to receive these funds asap.
Again it come down to my original post in that petitions and media need to get actively involved.
If there is enough of a public outcry perhaps Moulinsart will back down with their immediate demands to the court payment amount, perhaps there will be reasonable amount to be paid each month that will enable Mr Garcia to maintain a healthy living standard.
This is the argument that has to be given and I hope everyone gets behind him because having someone possibly lose everything simply because they have a passion and belief in something (especially Tintin) is very sad.

Soooo what happens to Bob Garcia now? I've heard about this but what's his current condition? What happened afterwards? Did he end up paying £35,000 or...? O_o

The most recent entry on his blog is from the 12 May 2010 where he states that he is still waiting for the bailiffs and the cops to turn up at his home. I can't find anything more recent. If you sign up to his facebook page you might find out more.

In the cartoon, the captive Tintin is pleading to Rodwell to let him go: "The children are waiting for me." "No way!" answers Rodwell, "You belong to us!"

Old story, but when browsing through the official site, I stumbled upon the same piece that mct16 has linked to before (page 2 of this thread, post #11). (link again: http://www.tintin.com/en/#/journal/journal.swf?newsid=418.

Interesting read, to say the least. Most of it sensible, even good. Some of it, ahem, how shall I say it? Interesting, indeed. Piece as a whole is written with great skill, copyright bits are good & most examples work. However, the trouble begins and my eyebrows are raised when some off-topic stuff is added into mix.

Moulinsart seems to have all sorts of wishes, feelings and hopes. And they indeed have other rights as well (on top of copyright). In my opinion, however, these extra pieces only add confusion to the copyright question.

Therefore, a clarification is needed. I'm not a lawyer, but I think I have a decent layman's understanding of the issue. I'll try and explain: some selected quotes from Moulinsart/Tintin.com and my answers to them:


That's good, since you don't have any legal right to do so. That would be censorship. And apart from writing, the same applies if someone wants to publish what he/she has written.


Indeed, it's your freedom to do so. As it is my freedom to ask you to compensate my efforts in promoting Tintin & Hergé. I think I've done brilliant job (for example, someone on these forums once said "good point, Mondrian"). Shall we say €10 000? No? How about free copies of "Chronologie d'une Oeuvre" -series then? No? Oh, that's a pity.

In short: while you have the right the ask, no-one has the duty to obey.


That might be normal indeed (however, since when have juridical persons had feelings?). But again, never mind your feelings, you are not being asked. Your copyright-lawyers have no doubt told you about right to quote? That means quoting small samples for example for criticism, teaching, research, news reporting or similar purposes. Without asking the copyright owners.

Trouble, however, is how much can one quote fairly? When needed, that's decided in a court of law. Oh, you knew that already? Carry on...

Commenting on "intentionally negative" seems almost too obvious, but while I'm at it: As you should know, all criticism is not positive. And that's needed. What's the point of criticism if it's all praise? Frankly, I don't see a danger of mix-up. I don't think any reader will think that any authors or their publishing companies like or "support" negative criticism. We can make a distinction between the author and a critic (and a legal person that acts as a copyright owner after the author's death).

"lacking quality" seems self-evident as well, but: everyone has a freedom of expression. Even those of us who can't write very well or eloquently. It's a human right. Quality control is indeed needed, but that only troubles those who finance the publishing of a work.

Writing teaches you to write, and writing under the pressure of knowing your text will be published teaches even more. An example: personally I think the pre-Tintin comics by Hergé are not masterpieces. But I think drawing them in a quick tempo for publishing was essentially important for his development as an artist.


Good. I should add that it is also always possible to write books and papers about Tintin using illustrations. See "right to quote" above.


Quite frankly, I'm struggling to see what your example has to do with copyright: if I was photographed, I wouldn't own the copyright. In my understanding, your example would be a case of libel, fraud or both. If you have been fooled in similar way, go ahead and sue. (And no, that example doesn't work as an analogy either: showing my face & personality is not the same or even similar as quoting a small fragment from a book.)

An excellent argument. I am totally agreeing with you there.

Garcia haven't posted in his blog for over one year, what has become of him?