June 2025
Legal Analysis on Copyright Protection Issue of Sports Event Footage
With the deep integration of the sports industry and the digital economy, the commercial value of sports event footage has become increasingly prominent. However, its copyright protection remains a long-standing legal controversy. A large number of disputes have emerged in judicial practice, ranging from the ownership of live broadcasting rights and the secondary creation of short videos to the determination of platform liability. This article, in light of the revisions to the Copyright Law and the Sports Law, analyzes typical cases to explore the legal challenges and possible solutions in protecting the copyright of sports event footage.
I. Legal Classification Disputes over Sports Event Footage
Whether sports event footage can be regarded as a “work” protected under copyright law hinges on the determination of its originality.
A. Disputes over the Standard of Originality
From “Works Analogous to Cinematographic Works” to “Audiovisual Works”: The 2021 revision of the Copyright Law replaced the term “cinematographic works and works created by a process analogous to cinematography” with “audiovisual works,” thereby expanding the scope of protection. The Beijing Intellectual Property Court has held that large-scale sports broadcasts, such as the Olympic Games and CBA (Chinese Basketball Association) games, reflect the individuality of the creators through camera switching, editing, and commentary design, thereby meeting the originality requirement of audiovisual works.
Judicial Divergence in Practice: Earlier judicial decisions showed inconsistency in applying the standard of originality. For example, in the Sina v. Phoenix Net case, the appellate court ruled that footage of Chinese Super League (CSL) matches lacked originality. However, the court in the retrial overturned this conclusion. It held that the program in question employed extensive camera techniques, montage, and editing methods to convey the atmosphere of the match, the competitiveness of football, and its narrative appeal. It also involved creative choices in camera angles, transitions, scene and subject selection, editing, and commentary—reflecting the individual input of directors and videographers. Consequently, the court found the footage to possess sufficient originality and classified it as a work analogous to cinematographic works.
B. Supplementary Protection through Neighboring Rights
Broadcasting organizations enjoy neighboring rights over the initial transmission of sports events, which prohibit unauthorized retransmission, recording, and dissemination via information networks. As a result, the distribution of sports event footage requires dual authorization from both the copyright holder (the producer) and the broadcasting organization.
II. Types of Infringement and Judicial Determinations
A. Direct Infringement
Live Broadcasting and On-Demand Services: Unauthorized real-time broadcasting or providing replays of sports events may constitute infringement of broadcasting rights or the right of communication through information networks.
Use of Short Video Clips: Editing and distributing segments of sports events without authorization may also amount to infringement. Such conduct rarely satisfies the conditions for fair use—such as “appropriate quotation”—as it may interfere with the normal use of the original work.
B. Determination of Platform Liability
Exceptions to the Safe Harbor Principle: If a platform actively promotes infringing content, creates dedicated sections for it, or profits directly from its dissemination, it may be found to have subjective fault. For instance, Bilibili was sued by the CBA Company for 406 million yuan for allegedly setting up a CBA section and encouraging users to upload unauthorized game footage.
III. Analysis of Typical Cases
A. CBA v. Bilibili: High-Value Claims and Punitive Damages
Case Overview: Bilibili allegedly provided on-demand access to videos of 221 games from the 2019–2020 CBA season without authorization. The CBA Company claimed that Bilibili’s actions constituted copyright infringement and unfair competition, seeking RMB 406 million in damages, including punitive damages calculated at twice the standard amount.
Although only a jurisdictional ruling has been issued thus far, and no substantive decision has been made public, the plaintiff’s claims suggest several key legal issues likely to be addressed:
1. Determination of Originality: Whether the CBA game footage qualifies as an audiovisual work under copyright law.
2. Platform Liability: Whether Bilibili’s creation of a dedicated CBA section and inducement of user uploads amounts to contributory or induced infringement.
3. Calculation of Damages: Under the revised Copyright Law, the court may apply punitive damages based on licensing fee benchmarks.
Significance: This case involves the highest claimed damages in China’s sports copyright litigation history. While a final judgment has not yet been issued, the case highlights the deterrent intent behind the new law’s provisions on malicious infringement.
B. CBA Broadcast Infringement Case by Chengdu Intermediate People’s Court: Judicial Recognition of Protection of Works Analogous to Cinematographic Works
Case Overview: Chengdu Baoxunqiu Company was found to have live-streamed CBA games online without authorization. The court held that the game footage met the originality requirement for works analogous to cinematographic works and awarded RMB 500,000 in damages.
Key Judicial Findings:
1. The court determined that the production of the sports program necessarily involved a series of creative decisions made by the production team in accordance with their creative intent and the broadcast requirements. These individualized choices demonstrated intellectual creativity, thus satisfying the originality standard for works analogous to cinematographic works.
2. The fact that the basketball games were disseminated online demonstrated that the work had been fixed on a tangible medium and reproduced through digital technology, meeting the requirement of “fixation on a specific medium.” Therefore, the defendant’s simultaneous rebroadcasting constituted a direct infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright.
Significance: This case further solidifies the judicial path for protecting sports event footage as audiovisual works under Chinese copyright law.
IV. Impact of Legal Revisions on the Protection of Sports Events
A. Breakthroughs in the Copyright Law
Punitive Damages Mechanism: In copyright infringement cases where it is difficult to calculate the right holder's actual losses, the infringer’s illegal gains, or reasonable licensing fees, the maximum statutory compensation has been raised to RMB 5 million. For cases involving willful infringement and serious circumstances, punitive damages ranging from one to five times the base amount may be applied.
Expanded Definition of “Work”: In addition to replacing “cinematographic works and works created by a method similar to cinematography” with the broader term “audiovisual works,” the law now includes a new category—“other intellectual achievements that meet the characteristics of works.” This expansion provides greater flexibility for extending protection to emerging forms of content, such as sports event footage and video game streams.
B. Progress and Limitations in the Sports Law
New Provisions on Audio-Visual Content Protection: Article 52 of the Sports Law, effective in 2023, explicitly prohibits the commercial dissemination of live audio and video from sports events. However, the law lacks detailed implementation guidelines, limiting its practical enforceability.
Strengthened Contractual Restrictions: Event organizers are now allowed to impose restrictions on filming through ticketing agreements. Spectators who violate such terms may be held civilly liable for breach of contract.
V. Existing Issues and Recommendations for Improvement
A. Ambiguity in Legal Application
The standard for determining the originality of sports event footage remains case-dependent. There is a need for judicial interpretations to clarify and unify the threshold of “minimal originality” required for copyright protection.
B. Refinement of Platform Liability
Standards for identifying situations where platforms “should have known” about infringing content must be further clarified—such as during the recommendation of trending content or the use (or failure) of technical filtering measures.
C. Improvement of Fair Use Provisions
More specific fair use exceptions should be developed for the use of sports highlights and excerpts in news reporting to ensure a balanced application of copyright law that accommodates public interest and media functions.
Conclusion
Copyright protection of sports event footage is a critical issue in balancing industry development with intellectual property innovation. With the recent revisions to the Copyright Law and Sports Law, judicial practice is increasingly leaning in favor of rights holders. However, clearer legal frameworks are still needed, supported by detailed regulations and technological governance. In the future, stronger compliance obligations for platforms and the effective implementation of punitive damages will be central to curbing infringement and fostering a more orderly content ecosystem.
I. Legal Classification Disputes over Sports Event Footage
Whether sports event footage can be regarded as a “work” protected under copyright law hinges on the determination of its originality.
A. Disputes over the Standard of Originality
From “Works Analogous to Cinematographic Works” to “Audiovisual Works”: The 2021 revision of the Copyright Law replaced the term “cinematographic works and works created by a process analogous to cinematography” with “audiovisual works,” thereby expanding the scope of protection. The Beijing Intellectual Property Court has held that large-scale sports broadcasts, such as the Olympic Games and CBA (Chinese Basketball Association) games, reflect the individuality of the creators through camera switching, editing, and commentary design, thereby meeting the originality requirement of audiovisual works.
Judicial Divergence in Practice: Earlier judicial decisions showed inconsistency in applying the standard of originality. For example, in the Sina v. Phoenix Net case, the appellate court ruled that footage of Chinese Super League (CSL) matches lacked originality. However, the court in the retrial overturned this conclusion. It held that the program in question employed extensive camera techniques, montage, and editing methods to convey the atmosphere of the match, the competitiveness of football, and its narrative appeal. It also involved creative choices in camera angles, transitions, scene and subject selection, editing, and commentary—reflecting the individual input of directors and videographers. Consequently, the court found the footage to possess sufficient originality and classified it as a work analogous to cinematographic works.
B. Supplementary Protection through Neighboring Rights
Broadcasting organizations enjoy neighboring rights over the initial transmission of sports events, which prohibit unauthorized retransmission, recording, and dissemination via information networks. As a result, the distribution of sports event footage requires dual authorization from both the copyright holder (the producer) and the broadcasting organization.
II. Types of Infringement and Judicial Determinations
A. Direct Infringement
Live Broadcasting and On-Demand Services: Unauthorized real-time broadcasting or providing replays of sports events may constitute infringement of broadcasting rights or the right of communication through information networks.
Use of Short Video Clips: Editing and distributing segments of sports events without authorization may also amount to infringement. Such conduct rarely satisfies the conditions for fair use—such as “appropriate quotation”—as it may interfere with the normal use of the original work.
B. Determination of Platform Liability
Exceptions to the Safe Harbor Principle: If a platform actively promotes infringing content, creates dedicated sections for it, or profits directly from its dissemination, it may be found to have subjective fault. For instance, Bilibili was sued by the CBA Company for 406 million yuan for allegedly setting up a CBA section and encouraging users to upload unauthorized game footage.
III. Analysis of Typical Cases
A. CBA v. Bilibili: High-Value Claims and Punitive Damages
Case Overview: Bilibili allegedly provided on-demand access to videos of 221 games from the 2019–2020 CBA season without authorization. The CBA Company claimed that Bilibili’s actions constituted copyright infringement and unfair competition, seeking RMB 406 million in damages, including punitive damages calculated at twice the standard amount.
Although only a jurisdictional ruling has been issued thus far, and no substantive decision has been made public, the plaintiff’s claims suggest several key legal issues likely to be addressed:
1. Determination of Originality: Whether the CBA game footage qualifies as an audiovisual work under copyright law.
2. Platform Liability: Whether Bilibili’s creation of a dedicated CBA section and inducement of user uploads amounts to contributory or induced infringement.
3. Calculation of Damages: Under the revised Copyright Law, the court may apply punitive damages based on licensing fee benchmarks.
Significance: This case involves the highest claimed damages in China’s sports copyright litigation history. While a final judgment has not yet been issued, the case highlights the deterrent intent behind the new law’s provisions on malicious infringement.
B. CBA Broadcast Infringement Case by Chengdu Intermediate People’s Court: Judicial Recognition of Protection of Works Analogous to Cinematographic Works
Case Overview: Chengdu Baoxunqiu Company was found to have live-streamed CBA games online without authorization. The court held that the game footage met the originality requirement for works analogous to cinematographic works and awarded RMB 500,000 in damages.
Key Judicial Findings:
1. The court determined that the production of the sports program necessarily involved a series of creative decisions made by the production team in accordance with their creative intent and the broadcast requirements. These individualized choices demonstrated intellectual creativity, thus satisfying the originality standard for works analogous to cinematographic works.
2. The fact that the basketball games were disseminated online demonstrated that the work had been fixed on a tangible medium and reproduced through digital technology, meeting the requirement of “fixation on a specific medium.” Therefore, the defendant’s simultaneous rebroadcasting constituted a direct infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright.
Significance: This case further solidifies the judicial path for protecting sports event footage as audiovisual works under Chinese copyright law.
IV. Impact of Legal Revisions on the Protection of Sports Events
A. Breakthroughs in the Copyright Law
Punitive Damages Mechanism: In copyright infringement cases where it is difficult to calculate the right holder's actual losses, the infringer’s illegal gains, or reasonable licensing fees, the maximum statutory compensation has been raised to RMB 5 million. For cases involving willful infringement and serious circumstances, punitive damages ranging from one to five times the base amount may be applied.
Expanded Definition of “Work”: In addition to replacing “cinematographic works and works created by a method similar to cinematography” with the broader term “audiovisual works,” the law now includes a new category—“other intellectual achievements that meet the characteristics of works.” This expansion provides greater flexibility for extending protection to emerging forms of content, such as sports event footage and video game streams.
B. Progress and Limitations in the Sports Law
New Provisions on Audio-Visual Content Protection: Article 52 of the Sports Law, effective in 2023, explicitly prohibits the commercial dissemination of live audio and video from sports events. However, the law lacks detailed implementation guidelines, limiting its practical enforceability.
Strengthened Contractual Restrictions: Event organizers are now allowed to impose restrictions on filming through ticketing agreements. Spectators who violate such terms may be held civilly liable for breach of contract.
V. Existing Issues and Recommendations for Improvement
A. Ambiguity in Legal Application
The standard for determining the originality of sports event footage remains case-dependent. There is a need for judicial interpretations to clarify and unify the threshold of “minimal originality” required for copyright protection.
B. Refinement of Platform Liability
Standards for identifying situations where platforms “should have known” about infringing content must be further clarified—such as during the recommendation of trending content or the use (or failure) of technical filtering measures.
C. Improvement of Fair Use Provisions
More specific fair use exceptions should be developed for the use of sports highlights and excerpts in news reporting to ensure a balanced application of copyright law that accommodates public interest and media functions.
Conclusion
Copyright protection of sports event footage is a critical issue in balancing industry development with intellectual property innovation. With the recent revisions to the Copyright Law and Sports Law, judicial practice is increasingly leaning in favor of rights holders. However, clearer legal frameworks are still needed, supported by detailed regulations and technological governance. In the future, stronger compliance obligations for platforms and the effective implementation of punitive damages will be central to curbing infringement and fostering a more orderly content ecosystem.
