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

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

VO, which has offices in the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany, is the second European IP firm to secure external backing this week
The Bardehle Pagenberg attorneys-at-law discuss the firm’s Managing IP EMEA Awards 2026 success, Unified Patent Court litigation strategy, and evolving European patent trends
A patent battle between two legal tech companies and a loss for Elon Musk’s xAI against OpenAI were also among the top talking points
With drug prices a hot topic in the US, courts are seemingly more reluctant to prevent the entry of generics to the market
Academic Eden Sarid joins us during Pride Month to discuss queer expression and IP law, Patagonia v Pattie Gonia, and how queer and AI-generated creations both pose novelty concerns
Patent attorney Michael Henson joins the firm to lead its freshly launched blockchain and digital assets practice
A dispute over mammogram technology, and a development in the case between GSK and Moderna were also among the top talking points in recent weeks
With rankings for Western Europe set to be published on June 25, we sat down with our research lead to find out what practitioners and law firms can expect
Peter O’Sullivan, a professional services executive, says he is looking forward to helping Pearce IP become the leading life sciences firm in Australia and New Zealand
Matteo Di Lernia, advocate at LCA Studio Legale, unpicks the CJEU’s ruling in M.M. Ristorazione v Villa Ramazzini, including its impact on litigation strategies
Gift this article