Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Defendants admitted to infringing copyright in 2,974 Turkish drama episodes and a 24/7 live broadcast channel owned by the Plaintiff.

• The court awarded $5,958,000 in statutory damages, far below the Plaintiff’s claim of $44.6 million.

• Licensing defense based on GEM Media failed due to lack of verification and unauthorized sublicensing.

• Attempts to minimize damages through “innocent infringer” arguments and a late defense pivot were rejected.

• Court denied punitive damages and a broad injunction, finding no ongoing risk and insufficient bad faith.

• Defendants' litigation conduct—including late disclosures and strategic delays—justified increased cost recovery.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and parties

The Plaintiff, Yelda Haber Ve Görsel Yayincilik A.S., is a Turkish media company that owns and broadcasts award-winning Turkish drama series and operates the Kanal D live television channel. The Defendants, GLWiZ Inc. and Gold Line Telemanagement Inc., are Canadian companies providing internet-based IPTV services under the GLWiZ brand, targeting Farsi-speaking users worldwide with on-demand and live TV content.

Between 2018 and 2021, the Defendants streamed 2,974 episodes of 22 television programs and rebroadcasted the Plaintiff’s live Turkish channel without authorization. They claimed to have received the content via sublicensing from GEM Media or GEM Music. However, the Plaintiff never granted a direct license, and the Defendants were unable to establish that GEM had rights to sublicense the content.

Procedural history and admissions

Following a 2019 cease and desist letter and subsequent investigations, the Plaintiff initiated legal proceedings in 2021. Initially, the Defendants denied infringement but later changed their defense strategy shortly before trial. They conceded infringement and claimed they had innocently relied on what they believed was a valid license. The trial, therefore, centered on the remedies.

Court’s legal findings

The court found the Defendants had infringed copyright under Canadian law by copying, distributing, and making the Plaintiff’s programs available online without proper licensing. The live broadcast was treated as a separate infringement. Although the Defendants argued for reduced damages under the “innocent infringer” provision, the court held that they failed to exercise due diligence in verifying the license and had ignored earlier warnings.

While the Plaintiff sought $15,000 per episode and $20,000 for the live channel, totaling over $44 million, the court found those amounts disproportionate. It instead awarded statutory damages of $2,000 per episode and $10,000 for the live channel, resulting in a total award of $5,958,000.

Costs and conduct

The court found the litigation was complex and that the Defendants’ late change in defense strategy, delay tactics, and conduct—including disclosure of a known technical “bug” just before trial—added unnecessary burden and cost. As a result, the court awarded the Plaintiff 30% of its adjusted actual legal fees (totaling $298,055) and $69,798.16 in reasonable disbursements, for a combined cost award of $367,853.16. Post-judgment interest was set at 4%.

Final outcome

The Plaintiff prevailed and was awarded $6,325,853.16 in total (before interest), comprising statutory damages, legal fees, and disbursements. The court denied punitive damages and a broad injunction, finding the relief sought was excessive and that the infringement had ceased. The case underscores the necessity for content distributors to verify licenses and respect copyright ownership in digital broadcasting.