Joris DeeneAnyone who shows a soccer game on a big screen in a café without the required license is infringing on the copyright and related rights of the rights holder. But does that rights holder then automatically have the right to compensation for damage to its reputation? In a ruling dated May 27, 2026, the Antwerp Court of Appeals answered in the negative: a commercial company that sees its own, unaltered footage being shown generally does not suffer moral damages. Damage to reputation is not automatic but must be proven on a case-by-case basis.
The facts
The 12th Player, a company that claims to hold the neighboring rights to the television broadcasts of the Jupiler Pro League, accused an Antwerp bar owner of showing those matches without having obtained a B2B license. The rights holder based its claim on two findings: its own finding by an Eleven Sports representative on April 28, 2024, and a finding by a bailiff on August 4, 2024.
At first instance, the Antwerp Commercial Court dismissed the claim. According to the trial judge, it had not been proven that a public communication had taken place: it could not be established that even a single person had looked at the screen. The rights holder filed an appeal against that judgment. Because the rights have been held by a different entity since July 1, 2025, the rights holder no longer sought injunctive relief in the appeal, but only damages for the established infringement.
The decision
The court overturns the contested judgment and finds that the bar owner did, in fact, commit a single violation. It differs from the trial court’s ruling on three points.
First of all, the court interprets the concept of “communication to the public” broadly. Citing the case law of the Court of Justice, it rules that the public consists not only of customers who are actually watching, but of any person who is free to walk into the café. In this case, there was not even a purely potential audience: people watching are visible in the photograph included in the bailiff’s report, and the bailiff was able to enter the premises himself. According to the court, the intention of the operator—who argued that he was merely testing his new equipment—is not relevant to the assessment of the infringement.
With regard to the evidence, the court draws a clear distinction between the two findings. The finding made by the beneficiary’s representative is rejected: it was not made by a sworn official and therefore cannot be considered purely objective. The bailiff’s assessment, on the other hand, is recorded in an official report with authentic evidentiary value pursuant to Article 8.17 Civil Code, and does provide evidence of one violation on August 4, 2024.
The court then assesses the damages. Pursuant to Article XI.335, § 1 Code of Economic Law The injured party is entitled to compensation for all damages suffered as a result of the infringement; Article XI.335, § 2 permits such damages to be assessed on a lump-sum basis when their extent cannot be determined otherwise. Traditionally, damages include lost profits and actual losses. The lost profits consist of the lost license fee, limited here to one month at the applicable rate of 84.99 euros, since only one infringement has been proven. The loss suffered includes the bailiff’s fees (375 euros) and compensation assessed ex aequo et bono for internal follow-up, which is reduced from 1,000 euros to 500 euros in light of the rights holder’s professional organization.
The court rejects the claim for compensation for reputational damage. According to the court, for a company with a commercial purpose, any potential damage is exclusively economic in nature and can only be demonstrated by a provable decline in profits. Furthermore, the reputational damage has not been proven.
Legal analysis and interpretation
Why the bar owner runs afoul of neighboring rights, not the copyright of the game
The rights holder relied on both copyright and related rights, and the bar owner did not dispute that these rights were protected. Nevertheless, the distinction deserves attention. The Court of Justice ruled in FAPL/Murphy that a soccer match, as such, is not a copyrighted work because it does not constitute an author’s own intellectual creation. Only ancillary elements such as the opening video, the anthem, or the graphics can be protected as works. The strongest protection for the operator of live sports footage therefore does not lie in copyright on the competition itself, but on the neighboring right of the producer of the first fixation of the broadcast. The fact that the court upheld both grounds together without distinguishing between them is inconsequential in this case because the protection remained undisputed, but it illustrates that the classification can indeed make a difference in a contested case.
An actual audience renders the discussion about the potential audience unnecessary
The first judge had dismissed the claim because it had not been established that anyone was watching. That reasoning fails to recognize the established case law of the Court of Justice, which interprets the concept of “communication to the public” broadly in order to ensure a high level of protection. As early as SGAE/Rafael Hotels the Court accepted that potential viewers also count, and in ITV Broadcasting It clarified that the number of people involved must be fairly large. The Court of Appeals did not need to resolve that issue in this case: the bailiff actually identified people who were watching, so there was an actual—and not merely a potential—audience. The finding that the audience also includes anyone who is free to walk in is fully in line with the Court’s case law regarding the hospitality industry and requires no further justification.
No General Exclusion of Moral Damages for Commercial Companies
The most notable aspect is the rejection of the claim for reputational damage. The court’s statement that damage suffered by a commercial company is exclusively economic in nature should not be interpreted as an absolute rule. The Court of Justice ruled in Liffers that damages based on the hypothetical license fee do not preclude separate compensation for non-economic damages. Thus, commercial companies, too, may in principle suffer non-economic damages.
The rejection is based on the specific circumstances in this case. Unlike in cases of traditional counterfeiting, where reputational damage can arise because counterfeit products are of inferior quality, in this case the authentic, unaltered broadcast was shown. The rights holder’s reputation is therefore not harmed: after all, the end customer sees the genuine product. However, the court does not rule out the possibility that reputational damage may occur in similar cases, for example, when a broadcast is shown in an inappropriate context. In any event, moral damages must be proven and cannot be inferred from the infringement itself.
Specifically, what does this mean?
For audiovisual rights operators. Anyone who broadcasts live sports or other programs and wishes to seek compensation for infringements would be well advised to have the evidence gathered by a court-appointed bailiff. Evidence gathered independently by an unsworn representative is not accepted as objective proof, and the costs associated with it are therefore not recoverable. Equally important is that damages must be substantiated for each proven infringement: a single verified broadcast entitles the rights holder to one month’s license fee, not an extrapolated amount covering multiple months in the absence of further verifications. Anyone claiming internal follow-up costs or reputational damage must provide concrete evidence thereof; a routine, professionally organized response to the infringement will result in a reduction of the lump-sum compensation.
For restaurant and bar owners. Showing professional soccer on a publicly accessible screen without a B2B license constitutes an infringement, even if it is a one-time showing and regardless of how many customers are actually watching. The argument that the installation was merely being tested or that the party was unaware of the licensing requirement is not accepted: intent is irrelevant, and, given the extensive media coverage surrounding the introduction of the licenses, ignorance can hardly be invoked as a defense. Anyone mounting a defense would be well advised to critically assess the probative value of the documents submitted, as was successfully done here with regard to the non-sworn statement and the letters not sent by certified mail.
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Can a bar show a soccer game without a license if no one is watching?
No. As soon as the game is visible on a screen in a public area, it is considered a public broadcast, even if no one is watching at that moment. It is sufficient that customers or passersby can freely enter and might watch.
Is a rights holder automatically entitled to compensation for reputational damage in the event of an infringement?
No. Damage to reputation is not presumed. Especially when the authentic, unaltered images are shown, damage to reputation is not evident. The rights holder must provide concrete proof of moral damages.
What evidence of an infringement will the court accept?
A finding made by a bailiff, recorded in an official report, has the evidentiary value of an authentic document. A finding made independently by an unsworn representative of the entitled party is not accepted as objective evidence.
Conclusion
The ruling reaffirms two well-known principles and clarifies a third. The concept of “public disclosure” is interpreted broadly and also includes anyone who can freely enter the premises; a bailiff’s determination remains the primary means of proof; and reputational damage to a commercial company is not automatic but must be demonstrated on a case-by-case basis. The rejection of the claim for moral damages is based on the finding that the authentic images were shown and should not be interpreted as a general exclusion. The lesson for rights holders is that a well-substantiated case, with evidence for each individual infringement, yields better results than a broad, extrapolated claim.
Dutch
English