Exclusive: Premier League takes legal action against pubs in fresh crackdown on foreign football TV broadcasts
A number of licensees are being targeted in a renewed crackdown by the FA Premier League (FAPL) over foreign TV football broadcasts.
The FAPL is pursuing civil lawsuits against several pubs across the UK, with more than £25,000 in damages sought in each case.
It comes four months after DLA Piper, representing the FAPL, sent letters to hosts it believed to be in breach of its copyright asking them to agree to a range of measures to avoid legal action.
The publicans who did not agree to the undertakings are now the subject of civil claims. The FAPL stressed that “the law gives us the rights to prevent the unauthorised use of our copy-right protected works in pubs and clubs”.
A spokesperson added: “The Premier League has decided to take legal action against a number of pubs across the country with civil claims issued in recent weeks. The only broadcasters that have the Premier League’s authority to broadcast live matches in UK commercial premises are Sky Sports and ESPN.”
One licensee, who wished to remain unnamed, told the Publican’s Morning Advertiser that he was considering his options after proceedings were issued against him.
“We need to sit down and assess everything,” he said. “Defending it would be good publicity for the pub, but there is a huge gamble in going all the way to the High Court and losing.
“The costs and fees could go up to £150,000 which we can’t afford if we lose, so we are just going to review the situation for the moment.”
In the FAPL v QC Leisure case in February 2012 Lord Justice Kitchin ruled that the FAPL has copyright over certain aspects of live football broadcasts including its anthem, logo and other on-screen graphics.
However, in December the FAPL lost its appeal over video replays after a judge ruled that they are not currently covered by copyright law.
Jonathan Smith, managing partner at licensing law firm Poppleston Allen, said: “You have to assume that the FAPL would only take this action against those licensees who have been in breach of its copyright. However, this may also provide some clarity as to what aspects of the coverage actually fall under the FAPL’s copyright.”
Licensing lawyer Peter Coulson added: “They (FAPL) will need to have their ducks in a row this time around because they have had quite a few setbacks. We will just have to see what happens.”
