Adaptation or Creative Dialogue? Historic Decision from EU Court of Justice on “Pastiche” and Copyright

Whether that famous quote attributed to Picasso, “Good artists copy, great artists steal,” really belongs to him is unknown; however, it wonderfully summarizes the art world’s endless debate on copyright and adaptation. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) drew the legal boundaries of this ancient debate with a landmark decision announced recently: How much can an artist take from another artist’s work, and when does this not count as copyright infringement?

Although the court’s answer is not short, its essence is extremely clear: Only if a true artistic and creative dialogue is established.

What Is the “Pastiche” Exception and Why Is It Vital?

EU copyright legislation recognizes special exceptions for specific forms of use such as quotation, criticism, parody, and pastiche. Expressing the assimilation of an original work, style, or form and its transformation into an entirely new work, pastiche serves as a vital protective shield, especially for contemporary art, collage, digital art, and remix culture.

However, where does the boundary between “quoting” and “copying” begin? This new decision by the CJEU illuminates precisely this gray area. According to the court, for an artist to benefit from the pastiche exception, they must be in a direct “artistic or creative dialogue” with the original work they draw upon. In other words, merely taking and presenting someone else’s production is not enough; adding a new meaning to it, transforming it, and establishing an intellectual/aesthetic connection with the original work is essential.

“Artists can no longer quote directly hiding behind the concept of ‘pastiche.’ From now on, courts will meticulously question whether that creative dialogue actually exists on the surface of the work.” — Alexander Herman (The Art Newspaper)

Art History Already Knew: From Pop Art to Postmodernism

The interesting part is that art history had practically answered this question decades ago. Pop Art, Appropriation Art, Postmodernism, and today’s digital remix culture were built entirely on the practice of transforming images produced by others:

• Andy Warhol took Campbell’s soup cans from supermarket shelves and turned them into iconic art objects.

• Sherrie Levine re-photographed Walker Evans’s legendary photographs one-to-one, questioning the concept of “originality.”

• Barbara Kruger subverted commercial advertising visuals with sharp political texts.

The legal system has always lagged a few steps behind in catching up with these radical and transformative moves of art. Although the “creative dialogue” criterion set by the EU Court of Justice does not completely end this confusion, it offers a concrete point of reference for local courts.

What Is the Situation for the UK (Brexit) and Turkey?

• United Kingdom: Since it is not directly subject to EU directives post-Brexit, this decision does not carry automatic binding authority for UK-based artists and galleries.

• Turkey: The Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works (FSEK) of the Republic of Turkey has a separate legal framework. However, for Turkish artists operating in the international market, opening exhibitions in Europe, or signing contracts with galleries, this decision serves as a landmark precedent.

Frequently Asked Questions About the CJEU Decision

Does this decision directly bind artists in Turkey or outside the EU?

• It is not directly binding. However, all artists exhibiting, selling, or offering their works to the European market on digital platforms within EU borders are subject to this legal scrutiny.

What is the fundamental difference between “Pastiche” and “Parody”?

• Parody directly imitates the work it targets with a humorous, critical, or satirical purpose. Pastiche, on the other hand, is much broader: rather than making fun of a specific work, it absorbs a style, era, or form to create a new aesthetic whole.

NO-26 Editor’s Note

Art has progressed throughout history by clashing with legal and proprietary frameworks. This decision by the EU Court of Justice does not eliminate that friction entirely; however, by converting the concept of “creative dialogue” into a legal criterion, it reshuffles the cards for those practicing adaptation art. Our fellow artists working on collage, digital montage, or ready-mades would benefit greatly from reviewing this precedent before their next exhibition.

Case Detail: EUR-Lex, Case No: 62024CJ0788 (Judgment Date: July 21, 2026)