THE CASE OF SINTERKLAAS

The case of Sinterklaas Our heart beats with anticipation - the steamer of Sinterklaas will be arriving tomorrow. An annual highlight for the nation. Occasionally, Sint pops up in Dutch case law. Sint apparently triggers something in litigating Dutchmen - the combination Sinterklaas and judge gives rise to notable jurisprudence. A brief overview of the highlights:

Pres. Rb. Amsterdam 2 December 1999

On 2 December 1999 the Amsterdam court ruled in an exceptional portrait law case. KPN had used a picture of Sinterklaas in a print ad. The photo was taken during the official Sinterklaas-arrival. The actor Bram van der Vlugt plays the role of Santa Claus since 1986(!). Van der Vlugt and broadcaster NPS objected to the use of the image based on the portrait rights of the actor. KPN argued that it had not used an image of Van der Vlugt, but a picture of Sinterklaas. According to KPN, Van der Vlugt was not recognizable in the picture. The judge begged to differ. Van der Vlugt was recognizable and therefore the photo was a portrait of the actor under the Dutch Copyright Act. KPN lost the case. Professor Gerard Schuijt wrote in a commentary:

"KPN may have wanted to claim that a Sinterklaas should be unrecognizable by definition. But if unrecognizability does not quite work out, it is not for the courts to rule that Bram van der Vlugt is not a good Sinterklaas."

Subdistrict Court Groningen, 17 October 2007

After a visit from Sinterklaas and Pieten at a company, complaints rose about the quality of their artistic performance. The issue escalated and was decided before the Groningen district court. The judge came up with a beautiful consideration:

"In solidarity with the children - somewhat less with mother and father – Sinterklaas is free to sometimes encourage children to do subversive things that the children would almost certainly not be allowed at home, like throwing candy. Leaving aside the fact that the scene may not have been a cultural highlight, in this context fits very well that a bad father is put in Sinterklaas’ cloth sack."

Groningen District Court, 14 October 2010

That Sinterklaas can be dangerous follows from a recent criminal case - again from the north. A student sustained injury when he - dressed in Sinterklaas-suit - was voluntarily set on fire. This was part of a fraternity hazing. The results were burns, plus community service penalty of 50 hours for the person that lit the fire.

Appeals Board Advertising Code Committee 5 November 2010

My colleague Martin Haak wrote about the rulings of the Advertising Code Committee on complaints about the movie poster for the film Sint of director Dick Maas. According to the applicants the poster would be too frightening for children. The Advertising Code Committee rejected the complaints. Fellow filmmaker Johan Nijenhuis appealed against the rejections but lost the case. From the decision:

"(...) that the person depicted on the poster, to children who are afraid of Sinterklaas, is not more frightening than any image of Sinterklaas on a poster."

Daniel Haije

Hoogenraad & Haak advocaten

office
Emerald House
Jozef Israëlskade 48-G
Amsterdam, the Netherlands
t +31 (0)20 - 305 3066
www.hoogenhaak.nl

post
PO Box 76780
1070 KB Amsterdam
e info@hoogenhaak.nl
f +31 (0)20 - 305 3069
chamber of commerce 34314579