Peppa Pig v Wolfoo – Sound IP Takeaways From A Copyright Dispute

A recent High Court copyright dispute has put alleged similarities to Peppa Pig in SConnect’s Wolfoo animated children’s series under the spotlight, with Peppa Pig’s owners, Hasbro and Astley Baker Davies Limited, alleging copyright infringement. Hasbro claimed that SConnect had used certain audio clips (e.g. sound effects or words said by Peppa Pig characters) in the creation of its own Wolfoo animated children’s series. Whilst SConnect conceded that certain older Wolfoo videos contained Peppa Pig sound recordings, it maintained that these had been copied by an independent contractor without its knowledge and that later videos used independently created audio.

Rather than waiting for a full trial, Hasbro applied for summary judgment in relation to the sound recording copyright claim, relying on expert spectrographic analysis which had identified extensive matches between the Peppa Pig and Wolfoo audio recordings.

The High Court concluded that the defendants had no real prospect of successfully defending those claims and granted summary judgment in Hasbro’s favour. There are still wider proceedings which include claims for trade mark infringement, passing off and copyright infringement across multiple jurisdictions. However, this judgment concerned only this one aspect of the copyright claim.

Key takeaways

The decision offers useful guidance for businesses, both in relation to litigation strategy and the management of copyright risk where content is outsourced or distributed to international audiences.

Outsourcing content creation does not necessarily prevent liability

The defendants argued that certain infringing audio had been copied by a contractor without their knowledge, but this did not prevent liability. Certain acts of copyright infringement do not depend on knowledge, so businesses cannot necessarily avoid liability by attributing copying to external agencies, freelancers or other third parties. Appropriate contractual protections, due diligence and internal review processes remain essential. Similar practical risks may arise where businesses rely on AI-assisted content creation.

The importance of evidence

Hasbro provided detailed technical evidence, whilst the defendants produced no expert evidence of their own and did not engage meaningfully with the spectrographic analysis. The decision is a reminder that a party faced with detailed technical evidence needs to engage substantively with it and, where appropriate, put forward competing evidence of its own. Hasbro was also able to provide good evidence supporting its ownership of the relevant copyright, highlighting the importance of maintaining clear records showing how IP rights have been created and acquired.

Publishing online creates international copyright risk

The defendants published Wolfoo videos via YouTube and other online platforms to audiences worldwide. The English High Court was prepared to determine copyright claims concerning multiple jurisdictions without detailed evidence of foreign copyright law, as the defendants had not identified any material differences from the laws of England and Wales. For businesses operating online, the decision is a reminder that even where UK viewers only make up a relatively minor proportion of viewers (in this case 3%) there may still be a UK copyright risk.

Directors may face personal liability

The defendant company’s CEO was found jointly liable for continued infringements occurring after proceedings had been issued, on the basis that he had authorised and directed the ongoing infringing acts. Once a business is put on notice of potential infringement, allegations should be investigated promptly and appropriate legal advice taken on how to respond, including whether the relevant activity should continue. Continuing potentially infringing activity without properly assessing the allegations may increase the risk not only for the company, but potentially also for individuals who authorise or direct what happens next.

Summary judgment can be an effective litigation strategy

Summary judgment can allow a party to obtain an early decision on all or part of a claim without waiting for a full trial. An early decision on a key issue can change the parties’ negotiating positions and potentially create greater scope for settlement, avoiding some of the time and cost of taking all issues to trial.

For businesses creating, licensing or distributing content, the case highlights the importance of managing IP risk at every stage. We regularly advise businesses on copyright ownership and licensing, contractor arrangements, infringement, enforcement and IP disputes, including strategies for resolving disputes at an early stage where possible.