Who does a character belong to? Moral rights dispute suspends Gaston Lagaffe's resurrection

Before the Belgian cartoonist André Franquin died in 1997, he expressly declared that he did not want his most popular character, Gaston Lagaffe (Tomás el Gafe in Spanish), to survive him.

To ensure that it never happened, he gave his daughter Isabelle the moral rights to her creation.

While in the vignettes Gaston does his best to get out of his job as an apprentice at

magazine , in real life the Dupuis publishing house has put him back to work.

But the story, like everything that surrounds the Gafe, has ended up twisting.

The company announced on March 17 that it had prepared a copy with new Gaston plots,

(The Return of Lagaffe)

30 years after his last adventures saw the light.

But the author's daughter, with the intention of complying with the will of her father, has resorted to the Belgian justice to stop her publication.

The judge, who has suspended it until a firm decision is made in September, will have to decide what weighs more: the moral rights, in the power of the heiress, or the publication rights, in the hands of Dupuis.

Franquin, one of the great authors of European comics, stood out for his work in

magazine and for the development of some of its characters and stories, such as

or

the central publication of the header

But this last couple of young reporters —which Franquin inherited from his teacher Jijé in 1946 due to the good results he had achieved with his first cartoon in charge,

It was not his creation, but Rob-Vel's in 1938. The cartoonist was indeed responsible for creating Gaston Lagaffe in 1957, and with great care.

His constant attempts not to work, which almost always ended badly, and his point of view on everyday life earned a place in the hearts of readers.

So much so that Gafe

little by little it was acquiring a greater space in the paper.

And finally, in 1968, Franquin abandoned

to devote more time to Gaston, which was published in the masthead until a few months before the Belgian's death.

More information

Why have Spirou and Fantasio arrived so young at 80?

The author considered the complete work.

And so it was until this year Dupuis, claiming publication rights, announced that Gaston would return, under the brush of Quebecer Marc Delaf.

Isabelle Franquin considered this project "illegal" and demanded the "urgent and provisional suspension of any pre-publication, promotion or distribution of the new vignettes."

She published an open letter in which she called for the moral rights of authors to be respected, regardless of whether they are alive or dead.

“By disregarding their moral rights, the creation of yesterday and today is put in danger and tomorrow's is mortgaged;

comics cannot be limited to a traditional trade or an industrial product”, reads the letter, which has already received the support of more than 800 personalities, including other cartoonists such as Philippe Geluck or Benoît Peeters.

The publisher, by way of response, announced its intentions to postpone the publication of the new comic -which it expected to sell 1.2 million copies- "to allow a serene and objective debate and to preserve the quality of relations with Mrs. Franquin pending the final court decision, according to a statement.

📣The return of Gaston is the grand event of the centennial celebration of Dupuis editions!

Et c'est à Marc Delaf que nous avons entrusted the mission of creating new gags and a new album by

Gaston.

– Editions Dupuis (@EditionsDupuis) ​​March 17, 2022

Already with the cards on the table, in September, the Belgian justice will have to prioritize moral or publication rights.

Both are part of the same total, intellectual property, although each one is in a different branch of the two that make it up.

Marta C. Dehesa, a lawyer specializing in this field, explains: “Leaving aside industrial property, copyright in continental law —which is applied in a similar way in Europe and is different from Anglo

Saxon

integrates two types of rights: one of a more personal nature and another more patrimonial.

Of a personal nature, let us say that there are moral rights, and of a patrimonial nature, those of exploitation”.

Adaptation or transformation?

Dupuis maintains that, in the acquisition contract they signed with the author in 2013, "Franquin stipulated the right to make new uses of his characters and his work," Alain Berenboom, Dupuis's lawyer, told the French newspaper

“André Franquin and his wife had created SA Franquin, to which the author had transferred his characters.

This company was first sold to Marsu Productions, which then sold it to Dupuis”, added the lawyer.

According to him, one of the clauses included in the contract "limits" the application of moral rights: the family can only reject an adaptation "for ethical or artistic reasons", conditions that do not exist, he argues.

Dehesa believes that “the discussion is going to be between whether it is a modification of the work, in such a way that the generation of a new comic supposes modifying the integrity of that work, or an adaptation.

To transform is to convert a work into another derivative work, a new one.

From a comic, a movie.”

In fact, Gaston Lagaffe has been transferred to other platforms in recent years: it has been made into a live-action film twice, in 1981 and in 2018;

in 1987

a video game similar to

but

in the writing of Spirou;

two years later some vignettes with actors were adapted for television;

and even a book-disc was published in 1983 that included two songs about Gaston.

But as for comics, explains Dehesa, the story is very different: “For me, generating a new comic, without knowing these clauses in detail, does not imply a right to adapt or transform, but rather to expand that work, with what which the original loses its unity”.

André Franquin, author of 'Gaston Lagaffe', with a figure of his character, on November 14, 1996. Frederic REGLAIN (Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images)

The expert gives the example of a sculpture like

Michelangelo's

The problem here is regarding the consideration of a work of art in the comic.

He left a complete work, with a beginning and an end.

Adding now without his authorization new editions of his supposes to modify his work and the integrity of his work, which was a whole as far as he left it and as he left it 30 years ago”.

José Manuel Tournée, a lawyer who is also an expert in the matter, considers, however, that each of the comic strips is a work as such.

Therefore, "in the absence of seeing the contract", he believes that Dupuis could have an asset in his favor: rely on the right to use the character, different from that of each of the comics.

“The use of the character may have been transferred, and we would no longer be talking only about intellectual property, that would be industrial property too, for

or for whatever they do.

In those cases we could be before a right assigned and that is not in the moral rights.

The heirs have sought a solid argument that is in the law, but it may be that the publisher's right to continue using it prevails, "explains Tournée.

From the publisher they maintain a security message in the face of litigation.

In their statement, they convey that they are "confident that the coming weeks will allow them to demonstrate" their right.

In any case, they believe that the best thing for all parties would be to find "a solution that allows Franquin's work to live on to perpetuate the legacy of this comic genius."

It will be the judge who decides in September.

Exclusive content for subscribers

read without limits

subscribe

I'm already a subscriber