In a significant legal ruling, the Czech Constitutional Court has dismissed a complaint lodged by the CEZ energy company in a dispute with Greenpeace over a satirical video that parodied one of the company’s advertisements. The court, in its verdict, asserted that it was evident from the outset of Greenpeace’s video that it did not serve as an official CEZ advertisement. Instead, the video was a deliberate attempt to highlight the environmental impact of CEZ’s activities through the use of exaggeration and irony.

The contentious video, created by Greenpeace activists, incorporated footage of damaged forests and forest fires into a CEZ commercial, accompanied by text accusing the energy company of environmental harm. CEZ contended that this unauthorized use of their content constituted a copyright infringement.

However, the Constitutional Court maintained that the parodic nature of the modified video was unmistakable. Judge-rapporteur Pavel Samal emphasized the role of parodic or satirical artistic expressions in contributing to public debate, asserting that humor, exaggeration, irony, and sarcasm are integral to the democratic exchange of views. The court clarified that the content of the video constituted factual criticism of society and did not advocate violence.

The satirical clip, published in 2018, drew attention to broader issues of environmental protection, an increasingly urgent concern in the context of climate change and its societal ramifications, according to the court.

CEZ, while expressing respect for the court’s decision, reiterated its disagreement with what it views as the arbitrary use of its work and the infringement of its copyright. The legal battle had previously seen the Prague Municipal Court instruct Greenpeace to refrain from further unauthorized use of CEZ materials, a decision later reversed by the Prague High Court, which deemed the modified commercial as part of the environmental organization’s campaign for a healthier environment. The Supreme Court subsequently rejected CEZ’s appeal, leading to the company’s petition to the Constitutional Court, alleging violations of the right to judicial protection and the right to the results of creative intellectual activity.

Article by Prague Forum