Football Dataco v Stan James, Sportradar & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 27The Court of Appeal has finally provided some good news to Football Dataco and others involved in the commercialisation of data.
Football Dataco v Stan James, Sportradar & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 27
The Court of Appeal has finally provided some good news to Football Dataco and others involved in the commercialisation of data. Database rights can subsist in "live football data" and the corresponding licensing arrangements can continue. Recent cases have denied database right protection for football fixture lists and significantly narrowed the range of internal databases that qualify for copyright protection.
The Court also confirmed that website owners located all over the world can be held liable in the UK if the inevitable consequence of access in the UK to that website is infringement.
Was there sui generis Database Right Protection?
Sir Robin Jacob, giving the leading judgment, confirmed that the live football data constituted a protectable database. A collection of data can still be protected by database right even if it is contained within a copyright work. There is no need for the materials to have already been recorded - they can be recorded for the first time by the database creator. In addition, the objective facts (e.g. goals, times, scores) did not lose their protection because some subjective elements were added (e.g. personal assessment of the man of the match).
Infringement
The Court confirmed that, if A has a website containing infringing material which will inevitably be copied onto the computer of B on entering the website, A will be liable as a joint-tortfeasor of B. This applies equally to copyright. Website owners located all over the world can therefore be held liable in the UK if the inevitable consequence of access in the UK to that website is infringement. The Court noted that this situation is different to a seller on Ebay or a photocopier user who can decide whether or not to infringe. In this case, the website owner is not a passive facilitator but is causing each and every UK user who accesses his site to infringe. He should therefore be held responsible.
The Court of Appeal has finally provided some good news to Football Dataco and others involved in the commercialisation of data. Database rights can subsist in "live football data" and the corresponding licensing arrangements can continue. Recent cases have denied database right protection for football fixture lists and significantly narrowed the range of internal databases that qualify for copyright protection.
The Court also confirmed that website owners located all over the world can be held liable in the UK if the inevitable consequence of access in the UK to that website is infringement.
Was there sui generis Database Right Protection?
Sir Robin Jacob, giving the leading judgment, confirmed that the live football data constituted a protectable database. A collection of data can still be protected by database right even if it is contained within a copyright work. There is no need for the materials to have already been recorded - they can be recorded for the first time by the database creator. In addition, the objective facts (e.g. goals, times, scores) did not lose their protection because some subjective elements were added (e.g. personal assessment of the man of the match).
Infringement
- Users: individual users of the Stan James website infringed the database right in the live football database. When they clicked on a pop up button, they extracted a substantial part of the database.
- Sportradar: Sportradar admitted targeting UK users after the CJEU ruling so it was liable as a primary infringer.
- Stan James: Stan James was a joint-tortfeasor with Sportradar as it they were acting in concert. Users were made to infringe by clicking on Stan James pop-up button. It was irrelevant that Stan James did not know that the whole of the live data was downloaded onto the user's computer because the user's acts of infringement did not require knowledge.
The Court confirmed that, if A has a website containing infringing material which will inevitably be copied onto the computer of B on entering the website, A will be liable as a joint-tortfeasor of B. This applies equally to copyright. Website owners located all over the world can therefore be held liable in the UK if the inevitable consequence of access in the UK to that website is infringement. The Court noted that this situation is different to a seller on Ebay or a photocopier user who can decide whether or not to infringe. In this case, the website owner is not a passive facilitator but is causing each and every UK user who accesses his site to infringe. He should therefore be held responsible.