What happens when one of the world’s biggest children’s brands believes a rival animation series has been using its audio? Peppa Pig ends up in the High Court.
The recent decision in Hasbro Consumer Products Licensing Ltd & Astley Baker Davies Ltd v SConnect has attracted attention for the obvious reason: it involves Peppa Pig and Wolfoo, two hugely popular children’s animation brands.
But beyond the headline-grabbing characters, the case raises some important issues for any business creating, commissioning or distributing content online.
In particular: how much responsibility can a business avoid by saying someone else created the infringing content? The answer, as this case demonstrates, may be: not much.
Hasbro and Astley Baker Davies, the owners of the intellectual property rights in Peppa Pig, brought proceedings against Vietnamese animation company SConnect and related defendants in 2022. They alleged that Wolfoo, another children’s animation series, infringed their intellectual property rights and goodwill. While the proceedings covered a number of issues, the claimants ultimately sought summary judgment in relation to the use of audio clips taken from Peppa Pig episodes and incorporated into Wolfoo videos.
The defendants accepted that some Wolfoo videos contained Peppa Pig sounds. However, they argued that this was the result of an independent third-party contractor acting without their knowledge. They also maintained that later content used original audio created in-house.
The High Court was not persuaded.
Mr Justice Richard Smith found compelling evidence that Peppa Pig sound recordings had been copied and communicated to the public through Wolfoo videos. Importantly, the Court did not treat the alleged involvement of a third-party contractor as a get-out-of-jail-free card.
This is perhaps the most important practical lesson.
Businesses increasingly rely on agencies, freelancers, production companies and other third parties to create content. From social media campaigns and videos to podcasts and advertising, huge volumes of material are now produced externally.
But outsourcing the creation of content does not mean outsourcing all of the legal risk.
If content containing third-party intellectual property ends up being distributed through your business, you need to understand where that content came from and whether you have the necessary rights to use it.
That means thinking about:
The person who actually copies the material may not be the only person facing a problem.
Another interesting aspect of the case was the Court’s willingness to look at the wider picture.
The claimants had identified and analysed examples of infringing content. But once the evidence pointed towards copying being widespread, the Court was prepared to view the issue as something more than a series of isolated incidents. Online infringement rarely comes neatly packaged as one offending video, one social media post or one unauthorised use. Often, by the time a rights holder discovers the problem, the same content may have been uploaded, reused, adapted or distributed across multiple channels.
For rights holders, this decision is a useful reminder of the importance of looking for patterns of infringement, rather than treating every individual example in isolation.
The defendants also argued that problematic content had been removed and that later content was original. However, the Court was not persuaded that this resolved the wider issues.
For businesses, this is an important point.
Removing infringing content quickly is obviously sensible and may help to limit ongoing damage. But it does not necessarily erase liability for what has already happened. Nor should businesses assume that removing the examples that have been identified is enough if there is evidence suggesting a wider problem.
Sometimes, the right response is not simply: “Take down that video.”
It is: “How did that get there, and where else might the same issue exist?”
That distinction could be crucial.
Perhaps the broader commercial point is the international nature of the dispute.
The alleged infringement involved content created by an overseas business and distributed online to audiences around the world. That is now a familiar challenge for brand owners.
Intellectual property rights may be territorial, but the internet is not.
A video uploaded in one country can be viewed, shared and monetised globally within minutes. This creates obvious challenges for rights holders, but it also means that businesses need to think carefully about their exposure when publishing content internationally.
The case demonstrates the potential value of English proceedings as part of a wider strategy for tackling online infringement with a cross-border dimension.
The most interesting thing about Peppa Pig v Wolfoo may ultimately have very little to do with children’s cartoons.
This is a case about the realities of creating and distributing content at scale. Businesses today can publish thousands of pieces of content across multiple platforms, often using a combination of employees, agencies, freelancers, AI tools and external production companies. That creates enormous opportunities, but it also creates significant IP risk.
The key message from this case is simple: businesses cannot afford to take a hands-off approach to the intellectual property contained in the content they distribute. Whether you are a global entertainment company or a growing business building your brand online, knowing what is in your content, where it came from and whether you have the right to use it is increasingly important.
Want advice on the topics covered in this article? Reach out to Francesca Allport.
Intellectual Property