It has been established in Canada that sports broadcasting is subject to copyright law, but what about the substantive data that is the product of sport? In CBC v SODRAC the Supreme Court of Canada employed a purposive construction of the Copyright Act, specifically s. 3(1)(d), holding that reproduction rights remain exclusively with the copyright holder.[1] It has also been held that it is necessary to look at the character of the audience to determine whether a transmission attracts copyright attention.[2] In the modern world, sports broadcasting is a public transmission, hence the copyright protection it is afforded, and any unauthorized reproduction of live sports qualifies as a copyright infringement in Canada.[3] Interestingly, in September 2025, the largest illegal worldwide sports streaming service, StreamEast, operating out of Egypt, was subject to a multi-jurisdictional investigation and shut down indefinitely.[4] The message is clear when it comes to the reproduction of illegal sports streams and signals a worldwide commitment enforcing Intellectual Property rights. However, what about the underlying data from live sporting events? Does the sports data consist of purely fact, or is there some way for sports data to be copyrightable? English, American and Canadian courts have held that facts are not copyrightable.[5] I agree that raw sports data does not and should not be afforded copyright protection. However, I argue that certain circumstances, such as when raw data is extrapolated and transformed with a high degree of skill and judgement, may qualify as an original work and ought to be considered as copyrightable and included under s. 5(1) of the Copyright Act.[6]
Professional sports leagues in North America have tried to claim copyright protections over in-game data and statistics. Some even suggest that if there was an IP claim in sports data, it would be in copyright.[7] However, in National Basketball Assn’ v Motorola, Inc., the courts effectively denied the NBA’s copyright infringement claim.[8] The court held that the NBA did not hold a copyright interest in live game statistics, nor did they own the intellectual property of player generated data. The court held that the underlying data recorded during the game is information that any member of the public could gather by watching or attending it.[9] Accordingly, in-game sport statistics are not afforded protections under the Copyright Act. This position is further supported if one interpreted sports data as facts. This is essentially what the American courts held. In Canada, it has been established that facts are not copyrightable.[10] For any work to qualify for copyright protection it must be sufficiently original.[11] The idea of originality is refined in CCH where the courts found that the concept of original means more than just a copy; originality therefore entails skill and judgement.[12] In Delrina Corp., the courts distinguished ideas from the expression of ideas.[13] The former is public property and so not copyrightable. It may be argued that sports data is merely an idea and a form of public property. This is the position held in National Basketball.[14] Intrinsically it makes sense that an idea which can only be expressed in one or a very limited number of ways should not be afforded copyright protection. This would effectively create a monopoly on ideas. In CBC v Major League, the courts held that a fantasy sports company had the right to use information about players, including performance records.[15] The Major League unsuccessfully claimed intellectual property rights over statistics. This decision reinforces that statistics are not copyrightable. Raw data generated in-game is not copyrightable and will not attract any protections.
However, what about when data is compiled and manipulated, with skill and judgement. Should this attract protection? In Toronto Real Estate Board, the compilation of data from real estate listings was not copyrightable. The courts deemed the compilation not as an original work but rather as a ‘mechanical exercise’. Additionally, they held that such data is public property, so it is not afforded protection.[16]
At first glance, sports data appears in this category – public property and consistent of facts. As considered, these are not afforded protection in copyright law. However, could the compilation of sports betting data for example, become copyrightable? In Geophysical Service Inc v Encana Corp, the court held that human input is required for copyright purposes, and expert skill is required to produce an original work.[17] Therefore, given the requirement for originality which revolves around skill and judgement, and the necessity to have some exercise of human input, despite the initial appearance as public property, consisting of mere facts, ought compilations of sports betting data be copyrightable? I argue that such a compilation of sports data for betting purposes going beyond the purely mechanical process in Toronto Real Estate, and more likely resembles an original work under s.5(1).[18] In CCH, the courts held that skill and judgement considered in the originality test is the exercise of non-trivial, intellectual effort. Creativity is not required.[19] This supports the argument that complex, multi-layer compilations of sports data, go beyond mere fact and should attract copyright protection.
In Canada, should businesses choose to use sports data, they will likely not run into copyright infringements with the generators of the data, that is, the professional sports leagues from which that data originates. However, businesses ought to recognize the source of this data and be careful not to misrepresent the data if they are republishing it. Professional sports leagues likely benefit from Goodwill, so if the data is used in an inaccurate way, this business may find themselves in legal difficulties. Nevertheless, it appears that raw sports data is interpreted as fact and therefore would not be afforded copyright protection. I assert that in some circumstances, the compilation of sports data goes beyond a purely mechanical process and is the product of skill and judgement, rendering an original work worthy of copyright protection. I propose this the case in the world of sports betting, particularly the data which is used for the operation of the business. For completeness, I also consider the negative repercussions this may have. Currently, sport betting companies use ‘data-scraping’ to ensure they provide accurate odds lines and there is relative uniformity amongst professional bookies. The process of data scraping is complex, but simplified, it means going through massive amounts of data, in live time, and using that to adjust the odds provided. However, data scraping is not only used by professional bookies but has also become a phenomenon for pundits and amateur gamblers to try to get a competitive edge. Importantly, this data scraping could not occur if the data compilations were copyrightable. Consequently, this expansion of copyright protection will likely be scrutinized by various lobby groups and will need to be the product of policy consideration. Unsurprisingly, any change to current copyright law would come under intense scrutiny and likely requires a hearing before the SCC. If this were to go to the Supreme Court, I would guess there would be lengthy submissions regarding the public interest versus the creator’s rights. I leave this question to the class. Do you think these types of data compilations should attract copyright protection? What do you think the SCC would say?
[1] Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42) at s. 3(1)(d); CBC v SODRAC (2015) 3 SCR 615.
[2] Canadian Admiral Corporation Ltd. v. Rediffusion Inc., (1954) Ex. CR 382, 20 CPR 75
[3] Copyright Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑42) s.3(1); s. 27(1)
[4] See BBC News Article https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62q4l0d171o (authorities link shell account in UAE to £4.9m of advertising revenue directly from illegal sports streaming since 2010). Accessed Sept 27, 2025.
[5] See Kenrick v Lawrence (1890) 25 Q.B.D. 99 for original precedent set in old English case, later confirmed in the Canada, see Winkler v Hendley (2021) FC 498.
[6] See CCH Canadian Ltd v Law Society of Upper Canada (2004) 1 S.C.R. 39, 2004 SCC 13 – originality is defined as more than a copy of another work, requires an intellectual effort; Copyright Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑42) s. 5(1).
[7] Dentons, “How to Avoid IP Risks When Using Sports Data and Statistics in Your Business” online: Dentons https://www.dentons.com/en/insights/articles/2021/september/30/how-to-avoid-ip-risks-when-using-sports-data-and-statistics-in-your-business Accessed Sept 29, 2025.
[8] National Basketball Assn’ v Motorola, Inc. 105 F 3d 841 (2d Cir. 1997)
[9] Ibid
[10] See Winkler v Hendley (2021) FC 498 para 89.
[11] Copyright Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42 at s. 5(1); CCH Canadian Ltd v Law Society of Upper Canada (2004) SCC; See Geophysical Service Inc v Encana Corp (2016) ABQB 230 (human author needed for the creation of an original work for copyright purposes).
[12] CCH Canadian Ltd v Law Society of Upper Canada (2004) SCC
[13] Delrina Corp v Triolet Systems Inc. (2002), 165 O.A.C. 160 (CA).
[14] See National Basketball Assn’ v Motorola, Inc., 105 F 3d 841 (2d Cir. 1997)
[15] CBC v Major League, 505 F. 3d 818 (8th Cir. 2007)
[16] Toronto Real Estate Board v Commissioner of Competition (2017) FCA 236
[17] Geophysical Service Inc v Encana Corp (2016) ABQB 230
[18] Toronto Real Estate Board v Commissioner of Competition (2017) FCA 236; See Copyright Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑42) s. 5(1).
[19] CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada (2004) SCC 13
Copyright & Social Media
Communications Law