Anyone who shows a soccer game on a big screen in a caf\u00e9 without the required license infringes on the rights of the copyright holder of the footage. But does that copyright holder then automatically have the right to compensation for reputational damage? 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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\u2019s ruling on three points.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
First of all, the court interprets the concept of \u201ccommunication to the public\u201d 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 caf\u00e9. In this case, there was not even a purely potential audience: people watching are visible in the photograph included in the bailiff\u2019s report, and the bailiff was able to enter the premises himself. According to the court, the intention of the operator\u2014who argued that he was merely testing his new equipment\u2014is not relevant to the assessment of the infringement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
With regard to the evidence, the court draws a clear distinction between the two findings. The finding made by the beneficiary\u2019s representative is rejected: it was not made by a sworn official and therefore cannot be considered purely objective. The bailiff\u2019s assessment, on the other hand, is recorded in an official report with authentic evidentiary value pursuant to Article 8.17 Civil Code<\/a>, and does provide evidence of one violation on August 4, 2024.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court then assesses the damages. Pursuant to Article XI.335, \u00a7 1 Code of Economic Law<\/a> The injured party is entitled to compensation for all damages suffered as a result of the infringement; Article XI.335, \u00a7 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\u2019s 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\u2019s professional organization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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<\/a> that a soccer match, as such, is not a copyrighted work because it does not constitute an author\u2019s 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<\/a> on the work itself, but on the neighboring right of the producer of the first fixation of films. 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 \u201ccommunication to the public\u201d broadly in order to ensure a high level of protection. As early as SGAE\/Rafael Hotels<\/a> the Court accepted that potential viewers also count, and in ITV Broadcasting<\/a> 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\u2014and not merely a potential\u2014audience. The finding that the audience also includes anyone who is free to walk in is fully in line with the Court\u2019s case law regarding the hospitality industry and requires no further justification.<\/p>\n\n\n\nLegal analysis and interpretation<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why liability is based on neighboring rights, not on the copyright of the competition<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
An actual audience renders the discussion about the potential audience unnecessary<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
No General Exclusion of Moral Damages for Commercial Companies<\/h3>\n\n\n\n