UK: ITV v TV Catchup Ltd: The End Of The Road For TV Catchup?

Last Updated: 25 November 2013
Article by Nicola Hegde

The Chancery Division has recently handed down an order in ITV v TV Catchup Ltd which prohibits the defendant, TV Catchup Ltd, from streaming certain free-to-air tv channels via its online service at The case revolved around whether TV Catchup Ltd was infringing ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5's copyright in their broadcasts by making available to the public all the free-to-air UK channels over its website. After initial hearings in 2011, the High Court referred a number of questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union ("CJEU") regarding the key aspects of a claim for infringement of copyright by a communication to the public. The recent order draws on the CJEU ruling and may bring the matter to its conclusion, although both parties have been granted leave to appeal on certain aspects of the case.


The right for the owner of a copyright work to authorise or prohibit its "communication to the public" is set out in Section 20(1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 ("CDPA") which implements Article 3 of the Copyright Directive1.

Section 20(2) of the CDPA clarifies that a "communication to the public" means a communication by "electronic transmission".

The ITV v TV Catchup Ltd case provides valuable guidance on how the concept of a "communication to the public" should be interpreted.

ITV v TV Catchup

ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 (the "Broadcasters") have been battling with TV CatchUp Ltd ("TVC") for a number of years over the live streaming of the Broadcasters' channels on TVC's website.

TVC offers access to all of the free-to-air UK channels, including those of the Broadcasters and all the BBC channels, to any subscriber who signs up to the service on its website,  (The name "TV Catchup" is actually a little misleading as subscribers are not able to view content on demand, although this was previously the case. The service now only allows subscribers to view an internet stream of the live broadcast.)

When a subscriber signs up to the service he must confirm that he is both located in the United Kingdom and entitled to watch UK television, i.e. he holds a valid TV licence. Therefore, strictly the only people that should be able to access TVC's online service are those that could at any point simply switch on their televisions and watch any of the free-to-air broadcasts.

TVC is free to its subscribers but the service is funded by advertising. Advertisements are shown both before the live broadcast is made available to the subscriber and later around the video stream (known as "in-skin" advertising). The advertisements in the original broadcasts remain unaltered.

TVC do not have permission from the Broadcasters to stream their live broadcasts and, since the Broadcasters themselves are also funded predominantly through advertising, TVC is in effect in direct competition with them.

The High Court Claim

The Broadcasters' claim was heard in the Chancery Division in 2011, with initial hearings in June and July of that year and a further hearing in November2.

The Broadcasters claimed to own the copyright in two types of works in their channels: broadcasts and films3. Although it appears from the judgement that TVC may initially have raised some form argument against the Broadcasters' ownership of the copyright in these types of works, this was later dropped.

The Broadcasters claimed that their copyrights in both the broadcasts and films were being infringed in two ways:

  1. by a communication of the works to the public; and
  2. by the making, or authorising the making of, transient copies of the works in TVC's servers and on the screens of users.

 It is claim 1.) that proved to be the main point of contention in the case.

Communication to the Public.

TVC raised a number of defences to claim a).

First, TVC asserted that Subsection 20(1)(c) of the CDPA was not validly enacted. TVC claimed that under the Copyright Directive, the general right of authors to prohibit or authorise the communication to the public of their copyright works was restricted to the so-called "Berne Convention rights", meaning literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works only.

TVC argued that since Subsection 20(1)(c) of the CDPA extends this general right to broadcasts, the Subsection should have been enacted by primary legislation rather than secondary legislation.

Since TVC's claims represented a challenge to primary legislation, the court allowed the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and skill to make certain submissions.

Having heard these submissions, and those of the Broadcasters, Mr Justice Floyd rejected TVC's arguments. He held that the amendments made when implementing the Directive into UK law were "closely and naturally related to the purpose of the Directive" and the Minister was within his powers to enact Section 20(1)(c) in its current form.

Secondly, TVC claimed that even if Subsection 20(1)(c) was validly enacted, TVC's actions did not amount to a communication to the public.

TVC argued that because each subscriber logged on individually to its service through a series of one-to-one connections, there was no "public" within the meaning of the CDPA.

TVC further argued that previous case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union ("CJEU") stated that any communication must be to a "new" public different from that which the owners of the copyright works envisioned when they provided permission for the original broadcast.

Mr Justice Floyd stated that it was unclear from the previous case law whether or not TVC's actions did constitute a "communication to the public" within the meaning of the CDPA, and he therefore referred certain questions to the CJEU.

The Referral to the CJEU

The following questions were referred to the CJEU:

1.     Does the right to authorise or prohibit a "communication to the public of their works by wire or wireless means" in Article 3(1) of [Directive 2001/29] extend to a case where:

(a)      authors authorise the inclusion of their works in a terrestrial free-to-air television broadcast which is intended for reception either throughout the territory of a Member State or within a geographical area within a Member State;

(b)      a third party ([that is to say,] an organisation other than the original broadcaster) provides a service whereby individual subscribers within the intended area of reception of the broadcast who could lawfully receive the broadcast on a television receiver in their own homes may log on to the third party's server and receive the content of the broadcast by means of an internet stream?

2.     Does it make any difference to the answer to the above question if:

(a)      the third party's server allows only a "one-to-one" connection for each subscriber whereby each individual subscriber establishes his or her own internet connection to the server and every data packet sent by the server onto the internet is addressed to only one individual subscriber?

(b)      the third party's service is funded by advertising which is presented "pre-roll" ([that is to say,] during the period of time after a subscriber logs on but before he or she begins to receive the broadcast content) or "in-skin" ([that is to say,] within the frame of the viewing software which displays the received programme on the subscriber's viewing device but outside the programme picture) but the original advertisements contained within the broadcast are presented to the subscriber at the point where they are inserted in the programme by the broadcaster?

(c)      the intervening organisation is:

(i)      providing an alternative service to that of the original broadcaster, thereby acting in direct competition with the original broadcaster for viewers; or

(ii)      acting in direct competition with the original broadcaster for advertising revenues?


In order to answer the first and main question, the CJEU said it was first necessary to determine the concept of a "communication".

The CJEU noted that the principal objective of the Copyright Directive was "to establish a high level of protection of authors allowing them to obtain an appropriate reward for the use of their works, including on the occasion of communication to the public"4.

Further, Recital 23 of the Copyright Directive states "This right should be understood in a broad sense covering all communication to the public not present at the place where the communication originates".

The CJEU concluded from this that, given the need to interpret "communication" broadly, it followed that each transmission or retransmission of a work which uses a specific technical means must be authorised by the author.

The CJEU concluded that the making available of works through the retransmission of a television broadcast over the internet using a specific technical means different from that of the original communication must qualify as a "communication". Consequently, that retransmission cannot be exempted from the need for authorisation.


TVC had argued in the High Court that its subscribers did not constitute a "public" within the meaning of the CDPA since each individual accessed the service through a one-to-one connection.

The CJEU noted that previous case law suggested that the term "public" referred to an "indeterminate number of potential recipients and implies, moreover, a fairly large number of persons"5.

The CJEU referred to the case of SGAE v Rafaele Hoteles6. SGAE is a Spanish rights-holders association that brought a claim against the defendant hotel chain for distributing broadcast signals received by them to rooms within their hotel without permission. The defendant had argued that since the communication was to individual hotel room occupants who separately were of very little economic interest, there was no "public" within the meaning of the Directive. However, the CJEU said that it was necessary to look at the cumulative effect of making the work available to such potential viewers.

The CJEU applied this reasoning in the present case and concluded that it was irrelevant that TVC's subscribers accessed the work individually, since the use of one-to-one connections did not prevent a large number of people having access to the same work at the same time. The Court was, therefore, satisfied that the works had been presented to the "public".

New Public

Finally, the CJEU addressed the issue of whether or not there needed to be a "new" public in order for copyright infringement to have taken place.

The Court again referred to SGAE v Rafaele Hoteles and also the Football Association Premier League cases7in which the Premier League had claimed that the broadcast of its matches in pubs using foreign decoder cards was unlawful. In the Premier League case, the CJEU had held that in order for there to be a communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3 of the Copyright Directive "it is also necessary for the work broadcast to be transmitted to a new public, that is to say, to a public which was not taken into account by the authors of the protected works when they authorised their use by the communication to the original public".

However, the CJEU went on to distinguish the present case from those earlier cases. It held that in those earlier cases, the Court was examining a situation in which an operator had made accessible the original broadcast containing protected works by its deliberate intervention, meaning that the original broadcast was communicated to the public by the third party operator.

In contrast, in the present case, the CJEU held that it was dealing with a situation where there was first a transmission of works included in a terrestrial broadcast and then a second transmission over the internet. The CJEU held that since there were two separate transmissions, using two technical conditions, each must be authorised individually and separately by the authors concerned. It held that since there were two separate transmissions, it was no longer necessary to deal with the requirement that there must be a new public (which is only necessary in the single transmission situation in the earlier cases).

The CJEU was, therefore, satisfied that TVC's actions did constitute a communication to the public of the Broadcasters' copyright works.

The additional questions referred

Question 2)a) had already been answered by the Court in its examination of the main issue.

With regard to question 2)b), the CJEU said that the fact that TVC was a profit-making venture which benefitted from advertising revenue was "not irrelevant" but was not an essential condition of a claim for infringement by communication to the public.

Finally, with regard to question 2)c), the CJEU held that neither the Directive nor the case law suggested that the fact that the organisations were in a competitive relationship was relevant. It concluded, therefore, that this had no influence on the answer to the first and main question.

The High Court Order

Following the CJEU ruling, the Chancery Division issued an order on 10 October 2013 (the "Order"). A copy of the Order can be found at

The Order stipulates that TVC has infringed the Broadcasters' film and broadcast rights by streaming to members of the public via its website:

a)     all and any streams of the following channels: ITV+1, ITV+2, ITV2+1, ITV3, ITV3+1,ITV4+1, 4+1, E4, E4+1, CITV, More4, More4+1, Film4, Film4+1, 4seven, 4music, 5+1, 5USA, 5USA+1, 5*;

b)    any streams of ITV, Channel 4 and/or Channel 5 to mobile devices via any mobile telephone network; and

c)     any streams of ITV, Channel and/or Channel 5 to users situated out of the region to which the original broadcasts were made.

However, TVC's transmission of the original free-to-air channels – ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 – over the internet to users situated in the UK is notably missing from the above list since, in relation to these channels, TVC was able to rely on the defence set out in Section 73 of the CDPA. The Order provides no further commentary on this defence, although this may follow when a full judgement is issued. The Order also states at paragraph 4 that section 73 of the CDPA is not compatible with Article 5(3)(o) of the Copyright Directive which suggests we could see a change in UK law in this respect in the future.

The Order restrains TVC from communicating the above channels to the public in the circumstances set out above (with the exception of the channels to which the Section 73 defence applies). It also requires TVC to supply the Broadcasters with certain financial information to allow the Broadcasters to decide whether to seek damages or an account of profits which will be dealt with in a separate hearing. TVC are required to pay 80% of the Broadcasters' costs, with an initial payment of £200,000. Each of the parties are also required to make a copy of the Order available on their respective websites for a period of 6 months.


This case appears to indicate an expansion of the concept of a "communication to the public" in order to meet the principal objective of the Copyright Directive which is to establish a high level of protection for authors. The CJEU judgment clarifies that a communication using a one-to-one or individual connection does not prevent such a communication being to the "public". The judgement also explains that the requirement for a "new" public, that was set out in previous CJEU case law, does not extend to a case where a different technical means of transmission is used from the original transmission in order to communicate copyright works to the public.

Since the issue of the Order, TVC's online offering of live channels has been reduced significantly. Whether TVC survives in the future is likely to depend on whether it can reach an agreement with the Broadcasters to license the right to communicate their works to the public.


1.Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society

2.See ITV Broadcasting Limited v TV Catchup Ltd [2011] EWHC 1874 (Pat) and ITV Broadcasting Limited v TV Catchup Ltd [2011] EWHC 2977 (Pat)

3.A "film" is defined in the CDPA as a "recording on any medium from which a moving image may by any means be produced".

4.See paragraph 20 of ITV Broadcasting Ltd et al v TVCatchup Ltd (Case C-607/11 - 7 March 2013)

5.See paragraph 32 of ITV Broadcasting Ltd et al v TVCatchup Ltd (Case C-607/11)

6.Sociedad General de Autores y Editores de Espana (SGAE) v Rafael Hoteles SL (C-306/05) [2006]

7.Joined cases C-403/08 and C-429/08 

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions