{"id":102802,"date":"2026-05-15T14:28:00","date_gmt":"2026-05-15T13:28:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/?p=102802"},"modified":"2026-05-24T16:49:25","modified_gmt":"2026-05-24T15:49:25","slug":"copyright-tv-residential-care-center","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/auteursrechten-tv-woonzorgcentrum\/","title":{"rendered":"Should a residential care centre pay royalties for TV signal in residents' rooms?"},"content":{"rendered":"

More and more senior homes, residential care centres and nursing homes are capturing radio and television signals with their own satellite antennas and transmitting that signal to their residents' rooms via an internal cable network. Does that use of copyrighted music or image content require a license from the copyright holders? In an April 30, 2026 ruling in the case C-127\/24<\/a> (GEMA v. VHC 2 Seniorenresidenz), the Court of Justice of the European Union explicitly answered this question in the negative. According to the Court, the internal transmission of a signal received via satellite to residents' rooms does not constitute communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the directive 2001\/29<\/a>. Thus, no separate fee is payable to copyright organizations such as GEMA - and by extension Sabam.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The facts<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

VHC 2 Seniorenresidenz und Pflegeheim gGmbH operates a retirement and care home in Germany that permanently houses 89 elderly people in need of care. The facility has 88 single and 3 double rooms divided into four residential zones, in addition to various common areas such as restaurants and living rooms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Via its own satellite reception system, the home captures radio and television programs, which it transmits simultaneously, completely and unaltered via its cable network to the connections in residents' rooms and to the nursing rooms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

GEMA, the German collective management organization for music copyright, sought cessation of that retransmission in the German courts, arguing that a license was required. The first instance court in Frankenthal followed GEMA's lead. The Oberlandesgericht Zweibr\u00fccken overturned that decision, ruling that the residents did not constitute a \u201cpublic\u201d but a private group. The case ended up, via appeal in Revision, at the Federal Supreme Court, which asked three preliminary questions of the Court of Justice on the interpretation of the term \u201ccommunication to the public.\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The decision<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The Court held that VHC 2's retransmission was not a communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001\/29. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

For that qualification, the Court applies the well-established test from its established case law: for an act to constitute communication to the public, the work must be communicated according to a specific technical process which differs from that previously used, or, in the absence thereof, be addressed to a new public. Neither criterion is met in this case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As for the technical method, the Court holds that the mere transmission of a signal received via satellite over an internal cable network within one building or establishment does not constitute a \u201cspecific technical method.\u201d The Court refers to the logic of the ITV Broadcasting ruling (C-607\/11<\/a>) and places the case in the second situation distinguished in that ruling: not that of a retransmission over a new medium (such as the open Internet), but that of a user who, through his conscious intervention, makes a broadcast accessible. According to the Court, the situation is directly comparable to that of the hotel in the SGAE judgment (C-306\/05<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What is decisive then is the criterion of the new public. And exactly here the Court arrives at a different outcome from what it previously ruled for hotel guests, customers of catering establishments and patients of a spa establishment. The Court goes back to its earlier ruling of June 20, 2024 in Case C-135\/23 GEMA<\/a>, in which it ruled that tenants of apartments in a building do not constitute a new public. That situation is similar to that of residents of a retirement home, according to the Court, because both cases involve persons who live there permanently.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The argument that the operator of a rest and care home, unlike an ordinary landlord, also provides numerous other services on which the residents depend, finds no mercy in the eyes of the Court. What matters is that the residents, as owners of the receiving devices receiving the broadcast in their private lives, are part of the audience that the copyright holders already considered when they authorized the original broadcast.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The commercial nature of the operator's activity does not alter this analysis. The profit motive is, according to established case law, a relevant but not decisive factor. Finally, the Court points out that the opposite reading would amount to an undue double remuneration of the rightholders, whereas recital 10 of the Directive only requires \u201cappropriate\u201d remuneration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Legal analysis and interpretation<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The private sphere as a new fulcrum in jurisprudence<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The ruling confirms and reinforces a line that has been emerging since 2024: for the \u201cnew public\u201d test, the focus shifts from the intervening operator to the position of the ultimate recipient. As long as that recipient is in his private sphere and can be seen as possessing a receiving device - whether or not provided by the operator - there is no new public.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This shift is fundamental. In the SGAE lineage, the emphasis was on the deliberate intervention of the user granting access to persons who otherwise would not have access to the work. That so-called \u201cintervention criterion\u201d was almost mechanical: a hotel, a waiting room, a cafe, each time it was concluded that there was a new audience. The June 2024 GEMA ruling first introduced an exception for permanent residents of an apartment building, and this ruling extends that exception to residential care facilities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For residential care facilities, this results in a bipolar test. Decisive are the permanent nature of the residence and the qualification of the residential facility as a private sphere. The Court explicitly explains that the common areas in a residential care facility (restaurants, sitting rooms) can be regarded as an extension of this private sphere - an element that Advocate General Szpunar had emphatically advocated in his opinion and that the Court implicitly adopts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A Belgian precursor: Cass. Feb. 18, 2000<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

For Belgian readers, the result is not an entirely new sound. At February 18, 2000<\/a> The Court of Cassation rejected Sabam's appeal against a judgement by the justice of the peace of Marche-en-Famenne, which had decided that the performance of musical works by an orchestra in a retirement home did not constitute a public performance. The judge had found that the performance took place in \u201cthe private and intimate circle of residents who have their residence there and live there as a family\u201d, and concluded that the performance fell under the \u2018family circle\u2019 exception - at the time, art. 22, \u00a7 1, 3\u00b0 of the Copyright Act of June 30, 1994, subsequent art. XI.190, 3\u00b0 CEL but abolished since August 1, 2022. The Court of Cassation accepted this reasoning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Cassation ruling and the C-127\/24 ruling lead to the same result - no license fee to Sabam and GEMA respectively - but follow different legal paths. the Court of Cassation relied on the \u201cfamily circle\u201d exception. The Court of Justice chose a dogmatically purer path: it found that for permanent residents of a home there is no communication to the public at all, so that the exception does not even need to be invoked. This, incidentally, is in line with an older observation in Belgian legal doctrine, namely that in our tradition the \u201cfamily circle\u201d was not so much a real exception as a negative delimitation of the concept of communication to the public itself. For this reason, therefore, this \u2018exception\u2019 was abolished in 2022.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A factual difference remains that the Court of Cassation ruling concerned a live musical performance (a Christmas performance in a common room between residents), while the Court of Justice is ruling on the individual TV connection in the private room. The underlying intuition is the same: a retirement home is not a public space for its residents, but the place where they live their private lives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No \u201cspecific technical method of operation\u201d for intra-facility transfers<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Equally important is the clear delineation of the term \u201cspecific technical process.\u201d The Court confirms that the criterion applies to retransmission over a substantially different medium (typically: the open Internet), not to the mere transmission of a signal received via antenna or satellite over an internal cable within a single building or complex.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That distinction is of practical importance because it simplifies the discussion of the nature of the signal quite powerfully. Anyone who sets up a local signal distribution system within a single parcel or facility is legally doing the same thing as the hotel owner in SGAE: he is merely making the signal accessible. The question of whether there is communication to the public then depends entirely on the criterion of the new public - and thus on the permanence of the residence and the privacy of the recipients.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An interesting observation is that, unlike in AKM (C-138\/16<\/a>), the Court does separately examine and reject the \u201cspecific technical process\u201d criterion here before it comes to the new public criterion. Thus, the two criteria are again treated as independent alternatives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The profit motive: definitively devalued<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The ruling is also instructive for what it does not do: it completely drops the profit motive as an independent criterion. The Court repeats its standard formula that profitability is \u201cnot without importance\u201d but \u201cnot an indispensable condition.\u201d In the facts of VHC 2, this is doubly relevant. The operator is a commercial gGmbH (a German form of social purpose company), the residents pay a subsistence fee that includes the TV connection, and yet that is not sufficient to meet the threshold of a \u201ccommunication to the public\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Specifically, what does this mean?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

For residential care centers and operators of rest and care homes.<\/strong> For establishments that merely transmit a signal received via satellite or antenna to the rooms of permanent residents, the legal basis for a separate license fee to copyright organizations such as Sabam is removed. Those who pay such a fee under a current contract or a tariff declaration may challenge that fee again. A termination or a revision with charging of the amount paid for the pre-ruling period is not obvious, but for the future, the legal basis for pure retransmission has been removed. Attention remains necessary when the home does more than just transmit: its own music program, a waiting room TV with selected content, or a shared streaming service can indeed provide its own communication to the public.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For operators of establishments with \u201cpermanent\u201d residence in the broader sense.<\/strong> The ruling opens up a line of reasoning that may also be relevant for other settings with permanent residents: psychiatric institutions, institutions for persons with disabilities, sheltered housing formulas and possibly student residences with stays of an academic year or longer. In each case, however, it must be specifically examined whether the stay is sufficiently permanent to qualify as \u201cprivate\u201d - short stays and respite formulas presumably fall outside the reasoning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For hotel and hospitality operators.<\/strong> The ruling does not change their position. The SGAE line remains in full force for those offering short-stay accommodation. Apartment hotels and similar formulas of short-stay accommodation also remain under the \u201ccommunication to the public\u201d regime, as the Court confirmed in the Citadines<\/a>-ruling of April 11, 2024.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For collective management organizations.<\/strong> Sabam and similar organizations will have to review their charging practices for residential care centers. The ruling leaves no room for charges on the mere transmission of the signal to the rooms. With mixed rate structures (common rooms, private music broadcasts, etc.), the importance of an accurate rate structure becomes greater because pure cable transmission can no longer be included in the charge. An overhaul of the tariffs forces itself upon us, if not voluntarily, then under litigation pressure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Does this ruling also apply to Belgian residential care centers?<\/strong>
Yes. Art. 3(1) of Directive 2001\/29 has been fully transposed into Belgian law through Art. XI.165, \u00a7 1 CEL<\/a>. The concept of \u201ccommunication to the public\u201d in Belgian copyright law<\/a> must be interpreted in accordance with the directive - i.e., in line with the Court's case law. The legal line therefore applies directly to residential care centers in Belgium, and is also in line with an older Belgian precedent from 2000 in which the Court of Cassation reached a similar result.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Should an assisted living facility stop paying Sabam fees?<\/strong>
Not automatic. Many residential care centers have a global contract that includes other forms of music use (e.g., background music in restaurants and common areas, in-house activities with music). In principle, that part remains licensable. However, the tariff structure can be critically examined and negotiations can be opened with Sabam about an adjusted tariff that excludes pure cable transmission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What if the residents could receive the programs even without the home's installation?<\/strong>
The Court explicitly ruled that for the legal assessment it did not matter whether the residents could also possibly receive the signal over the airwaves. What is decisive is that, as permanent residents, they are part of the audience that the rights holders have already taken into account in the original broadcast.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The ECJ ruling confirms a distinction that has been developing since the June 2024 GEMA ruling: the place of permanent residence is a private sphere, and its residents do not constitute a new public. For operators of residential care centers who merely transmit a received signal to the rooms of their residents, this means the end of the license obligation for that pure transmission. Moreover, the reasoning is in line with an older Court of Cassation ruling from 2000, which reached the same result via the \u201cfamily circle\u201d exception that no longer exists today. At the same time, the SGAE line for hotels, hospitality and short-stay formulas remains unchanged. The line now runs along the nature of the stay - permanent and private, or temporary and public - rather than just the nature of the intervention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n
\n
Do you work in an assisted living facility or similar care facility and have questions about licensing fees, contracts with collective management organizations or copyright disputes? Our lawyers specializing in copyright and intellectual property would be happy to analyze your case. Feel free to contact us for an initial consultation.<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Steeds meer rusthuizen, woonzorgcentra en verpleeginstellingen vangen radio- en televisiesignalen op met een eigen satellietantenne en geven dat signaal via een intern kabelnetwerk door aan de kamers van hun bewoners. Vraagt dat gebruik van auteursrechtelijk beschermde muziek of beeldcontent een licentie van de auteursrechthebbenden? In een arrest van 30 april 2026 in de zaak C-127\/24 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":102803,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[58],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-102802","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-auteursrecht"],"yoast_head":"\nAuteursrechten tv in woonzorgcentrum | ICT Rechtswijzer<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Doorgifte van tv-signaal naar kamers van bewoners van een woonzorgcentrum is geen mededeling aan het publiek, oordeelt het Hof van Justitie. De gevolgen.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/copyright-tv-residential-care-center\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Moet een woonzorgcentrum auteursrechten betalen voor tv-signaal in de kamers van bewoners?\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Doorgifte van tv-signaal naar kamers van bewoners van een woonzorgcentrum is geen mededeling aan het publiek, oordeelt het Hof van Justitie. De gevolgen.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/copyright-tv-residential-care-center\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"ICT Rechtswijzer Advocaat\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-05-15T13:28:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-05-24T15:49:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/geralt-dependent-441405_1280.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1280\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"960\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Joris Deene\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Joris Deene\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/auteursrechten-tv-woonzorgcentrum\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/auteursrechten-tv-woonzorgcentrum\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Joris Deene\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/29025dc007e8d33a89422580a534d685\"},\"headline\":\"Moet een woonzorgcentrum auteursrechten betalen voor tv-signaal in de kamers van bewoners?\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-05-15T13:28:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-05-24T15:49:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/auteursrechten-tv-woonzorgcentrum\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":2205,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/auteursrechten-tv-woonzorgcentrum\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/geralt-dependent-441405_1280.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Auteursrecht\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/auteursrechten-tv-woonzorgcentrum\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/auteursrechten-tv-woonzorgcentrum\\\/\",\"name\":\"Auteursrechten tv in woonzorgcentrum | ICT Rechtswijzer\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/auteursrechten-tv-woonzorgcentrum\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/auteursrechten-tv-woonzorgcentrum\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/geralt-dependent-441405_1280.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-05-15T13:28:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-05-24T15:49:25+00:00\",\"description\":\"Doorgifte van tv-signaal naar kamers van bewoners van een woonzorgcentrum is geen mededeling aan het publiek, oordeelt het Hof van Justitie. De gevolgen.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/auteursrechten-tv-woonzorgcentrum\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/auteursrechten-tv-woonzorgcentrum\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/auteursrechten-tv-woonzorgcentrum\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/geralt-dependent-441405_1280.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/geralt-dependent-441405_1280.jpg\",\"width\":1280,\"height\":960},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/auteursrechten-tv-woonzorgcentrum\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Moet een woonzorgcentrum auteursrechten betalen voor tv-signaal in de kamers van bewoners?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/\",\"name\":\"ICT Rechtswijzer Advocaat\",\"description\":\"Advocaten in IP, AI, IT, privacy & media\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"ICT Rechtswijzer Advocaat\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2018\\\/08\\\/joris-deene-auteursrecht-in-een-digitale-omgeving-1-638.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2018\\\/08\\\/joris-deene-auteursrecht-in-een-digitale-omgeving-1-638.jpg\",\"width\":638,\"height\":479,\"caption\":\"ICT Rechtswijzer Advocaat\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.linkedin.com\\\/in\\\/jorisdeene\\\/\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/29025dc007e8d33a89422580a534d685\",\"name\":\"Joris Deene\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/7073c8d7ef4db19fbc2d462ac2571a2b0a3e5c89329cba99b4d3caf0bcd7cfc1?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/7073c8d7ef4db19fbc2d462ac2571a2b0a3e5c89329cba99b4d3caf0bcd7cfc1?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/7073c8d7ef4db19fbc2d462ac2571a2b0a3e5c89329cba99b4d3caf0bcd7cfc1?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Joris Deene\"},\"description\":\"Advocaat-partner bij Everest Advocaten\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.linkedin.com\\\/in\\\/joris-deene-5144096\\\/\"],\"url\":\"http:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/en\\\/author\\\/admin\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Copyright TV in residential care center | ICT Legal Guide","description":"Retransmission of TV signal to rooms of residents of a residential care center is not a communication to the public, Court of Justice rules. The implications.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/copyright-tv-residential-care-center\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Moet een woonzorgcentrum auteursrechten betalen voor tv-signaal in de kamers van bewoners?","og_description":"Doorgifte van tv-signaal naar kamers van bewoners van een woonzorgcentrum is geen mededeling aan het publiek, oordeelt het Hof van Justitie. De gevolgen.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/copyright-tv-residential-care-center\/","og_site_name":"ICT Rechtswijzer Advocaat","article_published_time":"2026-05-15T13:28:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-05-24T15:49:25+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1280,"height":960,"url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/geralt-dependent-441405_1280.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Joris Deene","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Joris Deene","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/auteursrechten-tv-woonzorgcentrum\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/auteursrechten-tv-woonzorgcentrum\/"},"author":{"name":"Joris Deene","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#\/schema\/person\/29025dc007e8d33a89422580a534d685"},"headline":"Moet een woonzorgcentrum auteursrechten betalen voor tv-signaal in de kamers van bewoners?","datePublished":"2026-05-15T13:28:00+00:00","dateModified":"2026-05-24T15:49:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/auteursrechten-tv-woonzorgcentrum\/"},"wordCount":2205,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/auteursrechten-tv-woonzorgcentrum\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/geralt-dependent-441405_1280.jpg","articleSection":["Auteursrecht"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/auteursrechten-tv-woonzorgcentrum\/","url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/auteursrechten-tv-woonzorgcentrum\/","name":"Copyright TV in residential care center | ICT Legal Guide","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/auteursrechten-tv-woonzorgcentrum\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/auteursrechten-tv-woonzorgcentrum\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/geralt-dependent-441405_1280.jpg","datePublished":"2026-05-15T13:28:00+00:00","dateModified":"2026-05-24T15:49:25+00:00","description":"Retransmission of TV signal to rooms of residents of a residential care center is not a communication to the public, Court of Justice rules. The implications.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/auteursrechten-tv-woonzorgcentrum\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/auteursrechten-tv-woonzorgcentrum\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/auteursrechten-tv-woonzorgcentrum\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/geralt-dependent-441405_1280.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/geralt-dependent-441405_1280.jpg","width":1280,"height":960},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/auteursrechten-tv-woonzorgcentrum\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Moet een woonzorgcentrum auteursrechten betalen voor tv-signaal in de kamers van bewoners?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/","name":"ICT Lawyer","description":"Lawyers in IP, AI, IT, privacy & media","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#organization","name":"ICT Lawyer","url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/joris-deene-auteursrecht-in-een-digitale-omgeving-1-638.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/joris-deene-auteursrecht-in-een-digitale-omgeving-1-638.jpg","width":638,"height":479,"caption":"ICT Rechtswijzer Advocaat"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/jorisdeene\/"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#\/schema\/person\/29025dc007e8d33a89422580a534d685","name":"Joris Deene","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7073c8d7ef4db19fbc2d462ac2571a2b0a3e5c89329cba99b4d3caf0bcd7cfc1?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7073c8d7ef4db19fbc2d462ac2571a2b0a3e5c89329cba99b4d3caf0bcd7cfc1?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7073c8d7ef4db19fbc2d462ac2571a2b0a3e5c89329cba99b4d3caf0bcd7cfc1?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Joris Deene"},"description":"Attorney-partner at Everest Attorneys","sameAs":["https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/joris-deene-5144096\/"],"url":"http:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/author\/admin\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/102802","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=102802"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/102802\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/102803"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=102802"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=102802"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=102802"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}