Cartoon European
Paul
Cartoons are an important part of an open debate, of questioning both old ideas and introducing new ones. Yet, more than any other form of journalism, cartoons are feeling the strain of the shrinking space for freedom of expression.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
The following section will present the corpus of this study; Section 3 will provide a systematic overview of the criteria used by the ECtHR in the selected cases, thus setting the basis for a discussion of the problems underlying the current ECtHR approach (Section 4); Section 5 will demonstrate how relevant notions from humor studies can prove instrumental in addressing those problems, while the Conclusion will summarize the findings of the paper and outline possible directions for future research in the field. Before moving on to Section 2, one last remark is necessary: since this article is ideally addressed to both humor and legal scholars, a conscious effort was made to clarify all technical expressions from either side. A preliminary apology is therefore in order, should the phrasing of some passages be perceived as redundant by specialized readers in either discipline.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) was established in 1959; it deals with individual and State applications claiming violation of one or more rights established under the European Convention on Human Rights. The present paper focuses on cases revolving around the limits of freedom of expression, which is regulated by Article 10 of the Convention. The article reads as follows:
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for masng the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Based on a systematic search through the comprehensive database of the ECtHR (HUDOC), it was possible to assemble a corpus of 10 cases regarding cartoons or other comparable forms of predominantly visual humor. The decision to focus on these examples is primarily due to the fact that cartoons stand out as a particularly compact and semantically dense form of communication, and therefore represent an ideal testbed for analyzing how judges deal with the ambiguity and elusiveness of humor. Since the selected cases will be the object of close comparative inspection in the following sections, and considering that the present study is meant for a broad interdisciplinary readership, concise lay summaries of each case are provided below:
2. Explicitness of the message: The potentially offensive message can only be deciphered by a relatively small audience (extenuating factor) v. the potentially offensive message is delivered in an explicit, assertive way (aggravating factor). Occurrences in the corpus: 7 cases.2 The first two examples illustrate the former scenario, while the last one refers to the latter:
3. Context: The geographical, social or historical context of publication serves as a mitigating circumstance v. it serves as an aggravating circumstance. Occurrences in the corpus: 6 cases.3 The first two examples below cover the first scenario, while the third one refers to the latter:
4. Intertextuality: The meaning of the text is clarified (in an extenuating or aggravating sense) by means of intertextuality, i.e. by highlighting the relation to a previous text or common expression that the impugned work is echoing or reacting against (the notion of intertextuality is used here in the sense defined by Genette, 1997). Occurrences in the corpus: 3 cases.4 Examples:
8. Public interest: The text contributes to a public debate, or expresses an opinion on a subject of public interest v. the text is gratuitously offensive. This criterion is used in all 10 cases. The first three examples below refer to the former scenario (contribution to public debate), while the last two refer to the latter (gratuitous offense):
9. Damage to dignity: The text can significantly damage the dignity or reputation of (groups of) individuals v. the text is not likely to bring significant damage. Occurrences in the corpus: 8 cases.8 Examples:
In short, a cross-analysis of majority and minority opinions reveals major interpretive tensions on three levels: does the text clearly signal its humorous or satirical intent? What is the aim or message hiding behind the humorous surface? And to what extent should alternative interpretations (by a reasonable or unreasonable audience) be accounted for? To be sure, the recurrence of such questions in the corpus is not surprising or problematic as such; nevertheless, these hermeneutic conflicts are visibly multiplied and exacerbated by the lack of a shared vocabulary and a clear theoretical framework allowing judges to deal with humorous texts in a systematic and consistent way. Notably, however, these three questions can set the basis for streamlining the treatment of humor in Article 10 cases: while being compatible with the criteria presented in Section 3, they can provide judges with an efficient blueprint for the application of said criteria. As detailed in the following section, insights from humor studies can provide substantial help in this respect.
The jury for the 2023 edition consists of: the winner of the European Cartoon Award 2022 Carlos Fuentes, from Cuba, Danish cartoonist Niels Bo Bojesen (Chair), Dutch cartoonist Jip van den Toorn, French journalist Catherine Andr, and French cartoonist and President of Cartooning for Peace Patrick Lamassoure.
From the early afternoon until the late evening, experts, activists, artists and cartoonists will sit together in the rooms of the Beeld & Geluid Museum of The Hague for workshops and panels, book presentations and talks. They will connect with their audience, draw their cartoons, and teach the subtle art of editorial cartoons.
After the Award Ceremony, an exhibition showcasing the 40 longlisted works of the ECA 2023 will be inaugurated in the main hall and entrance of the museum. The exhibition can be seen until 3 December 2023.
One question which the European IP Helpdesk receives quite regularly relates to the use of well-known fictional characters such as the Grinch, Tintin or the Smurfs on products such as clothes, items such as mugs or even creative works of art. While most people who come to us with this kind of question understand that there are intellectual property rights involved and covering these characters, it is quite common for them to lack understanding of when and how they can be used, if they can be used at all! The topic received high publicity a few months ago with the announcement that Mickey Mouse had fallen into the public domain, leading to a wide range of new artworks created by people taking advantage of the new availability of the character. Many (including the media reporting on the topic) misunderstood the implications that this had.
In this blog post, we are therefore going to try to shed some light on the topic, explaining what the public domain is, why you should still be careful when using copyright-protected works which to the best of your knowledge are now in the public domain, and when and how you can use (or reuse) well know cartoon characters in your own artworks or products.
As you most probably have noticed, despite this momentous event, Mickey Mouse works, films or products not developed by Disney are not everywhere all of a sudden. There are mainly two reasons for this.
Comic strip from a series of cartoons about Europe's Columbus laboratory. Circling our planet at 28 800 km/h, this element of the International Space Station created space history as the first European module dedicated to long-term research in weightlessness.
Cartoon Network[4] is a children's pay television channel in CIS & Southeast Europe which was launched on 1 October 2009, replacing the pan-European feed of Cartoon Network in those regions. Cartoon Network is available in Bulgarian, Croatian, English, Russian, Serbian and Slovene.
In October 1996, Cartoon Network Europe began to be rebroadcast in English by the pay-TV operator Kosmos-TV (owned by an American company Metromedia International),[6][7][8] the duration of the broadcasts was not fixed. Broadcasting was carried out from 5:00 to 21:00 Moscow time, and the TNT UK TV channel was broadcast in the evening.[9][10][11] In October 1999, the channel TCM Europe began broadcasting during non-working airtime instead of TNT UK.
On 1 November 1999, the pan-European version of Cartoon Network officially began broadcasting on the territory of Russia and in the CIS and Baltic countries on the platform of the Russian satellite operator NTV Plus and in other cable networks, broadcasting from the Sirius 2[12][13][14] (partially duplicated).[15][16] Broadcasting was from 8:00 to 00:00 Moscow time, with the TV channel TCM Europe being broadcast at overnight hours. The distributor of the channel in the CIS and the Baltic States was Chello Zone.[17][18][19]
On 26 November 2010, a new corporate identity was introduced, as well as a new design.[24] In the same year, a website was launched - cartoonnetwork.ru and cartoonnetwork.bg, the site is controlled and maintained in London.[25][26]
c80f0f1006