Research - Exchange

THE LEGAL POSITION OF THE NORWICH PUBLICAN’S ABILITY TO SCREEN THE PREMIER LEAGUE MATCH

25/10/2024

THE LEGAL POSITION OF THE NORWICH PUBLICAN’S ABILITY TO SCREEN THE PREMIER LEAGUE MATCH USING FOREIGN DECODER CARD

Hanh My, Ho
Faculty of Law, Ho Chi Minh City University of Economics and Finance

Abstract
This paper examines at two cases: Case C-403/08 and Case C-429/08 of the Court of Justice of the European Union, in which pubs used unauthorised foreign decoder cards to access satellite transmissions of live football matches in the United Kingdom. The emphasis is on the impact of copyright aspects in these cases, such as intellectual property right subject matter, reproduction right scope, and the concept of public communication.

Keywords: intellectual property, public comminication, reproduction
File PDF: THE LEGAL POSITION OF THE NORWICH PUBLICAN’S ABILITY TO SCREEN THE PREMIER LEAGUE MATCH USING FOREIGN DECODER CARD

Introduction

The illustrations above came out throughout the time of a Premier League match which was being broadcast live using a foreign satellite platform in a Norwich pub. As shown in the pictures, certain parts of the broadcast were blocked or covered, for instance, on-screen graphics, recent highlights of the match during half time and Premier League logo which was part of the score caption at the top of the screen. Here such aspects of the broadcast were not shown in the pub raises a question about the legal position of the Norwich publican’s ability to screen the Premier League match using foreign decoder card. By reviewing two joined cases[1] concerning the unauthorized use of foreign decoder cards from Greece of the pubs to access satellite transmissions of live football matches within the United Kingdom, this paper focuses on the influence of copyright aspects of the case such as the intellectual property right subject-matter, the scope of the reproduction right and the concept of communication to the public. This paper is devided into four main sections. On the first section, the facts of the relevant cases will be briefly referred to so as to spot any similarity between them and the issue in question or any omitted fact. This is to ensure every aspect is covered. The next three sections including intellectual property subject-matter, the reproduction right and the notion of communication to the public will be disclosed sequentially in the following order: (1) by explaining the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CJEU’) and (2) by indicating the applications of the ruling to the issue.

[1] Football Association Premier League Ltd and Others v QC Leisure and Others (Case C-403/08) and Karen Murphy v Media Protection Services Ltd (Case C-429/08), Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 October 2011.