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 2026

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

Cookies Settings

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

Eight years after its launch, members of the Australian patent firm’s Singapore office explain its growth strategy over the past year
Lawyers at Bowmans Kenya discuss the digital blind spots posed by the transition from physical ledgers to cloud databases and digital co-development models
The Powell Gilbert co-founder discusses the confidence required to launch a firm, building an enduring patent litigation practice and why developing the next generation has changed her measure of success
Cabinet M Oproiu’s Raluca Vasilescu explains why AI is changing what clients expect from patent attorneys, where the technology is overhyped and what the next generation will need to do differently
As clients demand more flexible fees and AI-driven efficiencies, IP firms are rethinking pricing without abandoning the value of their work
HG Law was formed largely by ex Fish & Neave lawyers who left after the latter's merger with Ropes & Gray; now those experiences are shaping its latest combination
David Rodrigues and Evan Lazerowitz – attorneys at Robinson & Cole – offer practical guidance on the steps a business might consider to preserve and maximise IP value before entering financial distress or insolvency
Daniel Law CEO Alicia Daniel-Shores may have stepped into a family business, but she has spent two decades building her own vision around technology and litigation
Law firms don't particularly like saying no to clients. Perhaps they should get better at it
The office, which has a relatively new patent litigation team as well as a wider ‘soft’ IP offering, would remain independent if the rejection is rubberstamped
Gift this article