• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Sports IP Focus Case law update: TVCatchup and Football Dataco In February and March 2013, the Court of Justice of the European (e) the television broadcasting services and teletext service of the Union (“CJEU”) and the Court of Appeal of England and Wales British Broadcasting Corporation”. delivered two landmark judgments on the scope and interpretation of copyright and database rights law. The decisions are certain to Factual background have a lasting impact on industry practices, providing an increased The TVCatchup service allows users to access live streams of level of protection for sports broadcasters and securing the supple- UK television broadcasts via computers and handheld devices. The mentary revenue streams of sporting bodies. service is free to use, but limited to those persons who can access the internet in the UK and who hold a valid television licence. C-607/11 ITV Broadcasting Ltd v TVCatchup In 2011, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 brought an action in the On 7 March 2013, the CJEU appeared to widen the scope of copy- English High Court alleging that TVCatchup’s service constituted an right protection afforded to broadcasters and grant such parties the unauthorised communication of copyright works to the public, con- right to control both the means by which their works are transmit- trary to s20 of the CDPA. TVCatchup filed for summary judgment ted as well as the locations to which they are sent. on the basis that its service did not fall within the descriptions of However, while the CJEU’s decision may be seen by the major- infringing acts set out in s20 of the CPDA. TVCatchup’s application ity as a major victory for the broadcasting industry, its ultimate was unsuccessful however, the court holding that the descriptions effect in the case at hand is likely to be disappointingly small. given in the CDPA were merely examples and did not constitute an exhaustive list. Legal background At trial, TVCatchup successfully argued that to the extent it was Before analysing the CJEU’s ruling, it is worth setting out the legal broadcasting public service channels ITV1, Channel 4 and Channel foundations that support its reasoning. The key legislative references 3 to the public, its service constituted a cable service under s73 of made by the CJEU were as follows: the CDPA and therefore fell within the exception allowing cable 1. EU Directive 2001/29/EC (the “Copyright Directive”) operators to broadcast such channels without a licence. Article 3(1) of the Copyright Directive (as implemented in the UK With regard to its broadcasting of digital channels, TVCatchup by the Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003) requires claimed that this part of its service was merely a technical means to Member States to provide authors with the exclusive right to ensure or improve reception of terrestrial television broadcast to its authorise or prohibit any communication to the public of their catchment area, such services having been found in previous cases to work by wire or wireless means. fall outside the scope of protection afforded by s20 of the CDPA.1 TVCatchup also argued that any communication it made to users as 2. Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1998 (the “CDPA”) part of this service was not to the “public” as: Section 20(1) of the CDPA provides that: (1) users streamed broadcasts individually so the service was a “The communication to the public of the work is an act restricted by the private rather than a public communication; and copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, a sound record- (2) there was no “new” public in addition to the public to whom ing or film, or a broadcast.” the rights owner’s programs were broadcast. This argument “Communication to the public” is defined in s20(2) as: was based on the CJEU’s judgments in C-306/05 SGAE v Rafael Hoteles SA, C-403/08 Football Association Premier “[a] to communication to the public by electronic transmission, and in League and Others and C-432/09 Airfield NV v Agicoa Belgium relation to a work include – BVBA, where it had held that Article 3 of the Copyright (a) the broadcasting of the work; (b) the making available to the public of the work by electronic transmis- Directive was only engaged where the public was “new”. sion in such a way that members of the public may access it from a place The English High Court held that the authorities upon which and at a time individually chosen by them.” TVCatchup sought to rely did not provide enough clarity in rela- tion to the current dispute and so it turned to the CJEU for guid- Section 73 of the CDPA provides for an exception to s20(1), stat- ance on the meaning of “communication to the public”. ing that: “(1) This section applies where a wireless broadcast made from a place Decision in the United Kingdom is, received and immediately re-transmitted by (a) Meaning of “communication” cable. The CJEU confirmed that the principal objective of the Copyright (2) The copyright in [a] broadcast is not infringed – Directive was to establish a high level of protection for authors and (a) if the re-transmission by cable is in pursuance of a relevant therefore the phrase “communication to public” needed to be requirement, or interpreted broadly. It followed that: (b) if and to the extent that the broadcast is made for reception in “when content is put to multiple uses, each transmission of that content the area in which the [it is re-transmitted by cable] and forms by a technical means that is different to the primary means requires fresh part of a qualifying service. authorisation, even if it is transmitted to the same catchment area.” (…) (6) In this section “qualifying service” means … any of the following As such, the TVCatchup service was a new transmission and services – therefore required the authorisation of the rights holder before (a) a regional or national Channel 3 service, broadcast. (b) Channel 4, Channel 5 and S4C, (c) the public teletext service, (b) Meaning of “public” (d) S4C Digital, and The CJEU noted that the term “public” referred to an: “indeterminate number of potential recipients and implies … a fairly In particular, subsection 1 of Article 7 provides that: large number of persons.” “Member States shall provide for a right for the maker of a database TVCatchup’s target audience of all persons resident in the UK which shows that there has been qualitatively and/or quantitatively a with internet connections and television licences was held to substantial investment in either the obtaining, verification or presentation satisfy this test. Further, as the “number of persons” test was, the of the contents to prevent extraction and/or re-utilisation of the whole or CJEU said, to be conducted by considering the number of users of a substantial part, evaluated qualitatively and/or quantitatively, of the accessing the TVCatchup service successively, as well as simultane- contents of that database.” ously, the fact that users could stream broadcasts individually was For the purposes of Article 7(1), “extraction” means: irrelevant. The CJEU also held that there did not need to be a “new public” “the permanent or temporary transfer of all or a substantial part of the for there to be an infringing communication if the infringing contents of a database to another medium by any means or in any form” broadcast used specific technical conditions that made use of a dif- (Article 7(2)) ferent means of transmission than the copyright works in question. and “re-utilisation” means: Analysis “any form of making available to the public all or a substantial part of The CJEU’s ruling confirms the rights of content creators to con- the contents of a database by the distribution of copies, by renting, by on- trol how, where and when their content is transmitted, with the line or other forms of transmission” (Article 7(2)) Court emphasising the need for them to be able to protect and pre- Factual background vent unlicensed use of their works by new business models in the ever-evolving world of e-commerce. Football Dataco Ltd (“Football Dataco”) operates a statistics data- “Communications to the public” now includes not only the tra- base called “Football Live”, processing information relating to goals ditional concept of broadcasting but also the activities of those who scored, substitutions made and cards shown in UK football match- intervene in and reutilise the distribution of broadcast services. es. The data for the database is collected by paid freelance agents, Further, while the CJEU’s “new public” rulings in SGAE and with Football Dataco spending approximately £600,000 per year Football Association placed restrictions on the unchanged transmis- on gathering, verifying and licensing that data to third parties. sion of broadcasts to new locations, the decision at hand places Sportradar GmbH and Sportradar AG (together “Sportradar”) restrictions on new transmissions to unchanged locations. operated a similar service to Football Live, called “Live Scores”, As such, it would appear that rights holders can now control both providing football-related data to commercial operators including the means by which their works are transmitted as well as the loca- Stan James plc and Stan James (Abdingdon) Limited, two UK bet- tions to which they are sent. ting companies (together “Stan James”). Stan James, in turn, made However, it seems that the English High Court missed a trick in the data available to its own customers. not referring to the CJEU a question relating to the transmission In May 2012, Football Dataco issued a claim in the English High of public service channels via the internet.

Load more

  3

Copy Link