EU court: Retransmitting free TV programmes infringes copyright

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

EU court: Retransmitting free TV programmes infringes copyright

tv-catchup-45.jpg

The Court of Justice of the EU has ruled that a service provided by UK company TVCatchup infringes copyright because it falls within the definition of a “communication to the public”

TVCatchup streams terrestrial TV channels over the internet, checking that the viewer has a TV licence and is therefore legally allowed to watch those channels.

It was sued by several British commercial broadcasters in the UK High Court, which referred one question on EU law to the Court of Justice: does the service qualify as a “communication to the public” under the Copyright Directive

tv-catchup-200.jpg

The Court answered the question in two parts – whether the service was a communication and whether it was to a public, as defined.

As the TVCatchup service used “a specific technical means different from that of the original communication” it qualified as a communication. And the Court pointed out that each transmission or retransmission would require authorisation from the broadcast’s author.

The TVCatchup audience also counted as a public, as the target audience was large – everyone in the UK with a TV licence and an internet connection. It also pointed out that the calculation was cumulative, adding up all the people reached over the lifetime of the service.

In conclusion, the Court said that:

“The concept of ‘communication to the public’, within the meaning of Directive 2001/29, must be interpreted as covering a retransmission of the works included in a terrestrial television broadcast, where the retransmission is made by an organisation other than the original broadcaster, by means of an internet stream made available to the subscribers of that other organisation who may receive that retransmission by logging on to its server, even though those subscribers are within the area of reception of that terrestrial television broadcast and may lawfully receive the broadcast on a television receiver.”

TVCatchup responded by saying it would continue to fight the case at the High Court, arguing that such a ruling would also prevent services such as Virgin Media and BT Vision from transmitting terrestrial channels.

Those channels also only make up around 30% of the TVCatchup service, with the rest comprising digital channels that use TVCatchup as a means of streaming online.

The full ruling can be seen here.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The tie-up could result in the firm’s German and France-based teams, which both have strong UPC expertise, becoming independent
News of a slowdown in the UK’s clean energy IP landscape and an EPO report on unitary patent uptake were also among the top talking points
Price hikes at ‘big law’ firms are pushing some clients toward boutiques that offer predictable fees, specialised expertise, and a model built around prioritising IP
The Australian side, in particular, can benefit by capitalising on its independent status to bring in more work from Western countries while still working with its former Chinese partner
Koen Bijvank of Brinkhof and Johannes Heselberger of Bardehle Pagenberg discuss the Amgen v Sanofi case and why it will be cited frequently
View the official winners of the 2025 Social Impact EMEA Awards
King & Wood Mallesons will break into two entities, 14 years after a merger between a Chinese and an Australian firm created the combined outfit
Teams from Shakespeare Martineau and DWF will take centre stage in a dispute concerning the registrability of dairy terminology in plant-based products
Senem Kayahan, attorney and founder at PatentSe, discusses how she divides prosecution tasks, and reveals the importance of empathetic client advice
The association’s Australian group has filed a formal complaint against the choice of venue, citing Dubai as an unsafe environment for the LGBTQIA+ community
Gift this article