Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Scope of copyright protection over professional photographs and the photographer’s status as first owner of the copyright.
• Whether the client who commissioned the photos could validly authorize a third party (Omega Mantels) to reproduce and publicly communicate the images.
• Impact of the express limitation in the photographer’s invoice restricting use to the client only and prohibiting third-party use without written consent.
• Assessment of Omega Mantels’ failure to conduct serious verification of rights and its continued use of the photos despite warnings and a formal demand.
• Application of statutory damages under section 38.1 of the Copyright Act, including factors such as negligence, wilful blindness, and deterrence.
• Rejection of Omega Mantels’ counterclaim alleging wrongful demand and reputational harm in light of a proven copyright infringement.

Facts of the case

Archimed Studio inc. (Archimed) is a professional photography and graphic design business. In September 2021, a client of Omega Mantels, identified in the judgment as “the Client” and operating under Simply Comfy Living inc. / Janice Duncan, retained Archimed to photograph a project completed in her home. Archimed issued an invoice dated 18 September 2021 to Simply Comfy Living inc. / Janice Duncan for CAD 1,138.25 (taxes included). The invoice contained a specific copyright and usage restriction: it stated that the material supplied was for the use of Simply Comfy Living inc. and Janice Duncan only, and that no transfer or use by a third party was authorized without Archimed’s prior written consent. This clause went directly to who could use the photos and under what conditions.

Omega Mantels and 7621396 Canada inc. (together referred to as Omega Mantels in the judgment) operate as a business specializing in the design and sale of fireplace mantels and other construction coverings. 7621396 Canada inc. holds the right to use the Omega Mantels name in Canada and the United States. The Client later became a business partner of Omega Mantels, and in that context the photos taken by Archimed and delivered to the Client eventually made their way to Omega Mantels.

In March 2024, Archimed discovered that two photographs it had taken in the Client’s home were being used by Omega Mantels. The images appeared on Omega Mantels’ website as well as on several of its social media platforms, including Instagram, Facebook and LinkedIn. Archimed also noted that its logo appeared on some of the posts, underscoring that Omega Mantels was using images clearly marked as the photographer’s work. From Archimed’s perspective, no authorization had ever been given for Omega Mantels’ use of these photos, and no separate licence or fee arrangement had been negotiated with the photographer.

On 22 April 2024, Archimed, through its lawyers, sent Omega Mantels a formal demand letter seeking compensation for the unauthorized publication and use of the photographs. Omega Mantels did not remove the images and did not regularize its position with Archimed. By the time of the hearing in September 2025, Omega Mantels acknowledged that the photos were still available on its website and social media, meaning the alleged infringement was ongoing.

Archimed commenced a claim in the Small Claims Division of the Court of Québec (civil chamber), relying on the Canadian Copyright Act (Loi sur le droit d’auteur, LDA). Under section 38.1 of the Act, where rights have been infringed, a copyright owner can elect to seek statutory damages rather than proving actual loss. For infringements committed for commercial purposes, the statute provides that a court may award between CAD 500 and CAD 20,000 per work, as the court considers just in the circumstances. Archimed chose to claim statutory damages of CAD 2,500 per photograph, for a total of CAD 5,000, on the basis that Omega Mantels’ use was clearly commercial and unauthorized.

Omega Mantels defended the claim by arguing essentially that the Client, having paid for the photographs, was entitled to allow Omega Mantels to use them. Omega Mantels asserted that, in its usual practice, it obtained “all rights” from photographers it worked with, and it assumed that a similar situation applied here by virtue of the Client’s payment to Archimed. It did not, however, produce any written assignment, licence or other documentation from Archimed transferring ownership or granting any rights beyond those expressed in the invoice. Nor did it show that it made serious inquiries of Archimed, of the Client, or of legal counsel regarding the extent of the rights attached to these photographs.

In addition to disputing liability, Omega Mantels filed a counterclaim seeking CAD 2,500 in damages. It alleged that Archimed’s demand letter was sent “without right” and that it caused Omega Mantels stress and damaged its relationship with the Client, who had become a business partner. Omega Mantels argued that the Client’s perception of their conduct was affected by the dispute and that this caused reputational and commercial prejudice.

Throughout the sequence of events, emails showed that Omega Mantels reassured the Client that there was no legal or contractual problem with its use of the photos. Despite receiving Archimed’s explanations and demand, Omega Mantels effectively dismissed the concern and continued using the photos, justifying this internally as part of an “exchange of good services” with the Client and focusing primarily on its own commercial interests.

Legal framework and issues

The Court identified two core legal questions. First, it had to determine whether Archimed had successfully proven that Omega Mantels had infringed its copyright in the photographs. Second, if infringement was established, it needed to decide the appropriate quantum of statutory damages payable by Omega Mantels to Archimed, as well as the fate of Omega Mantels’ counterclaim.

The Court began by laying out the relevant rules of copyright law under the LDA. Photographs fall within the category of artistic works protected by copyright. The author of such a work is, by default, the first owner of the copyright, absent a valid assignment or other statutory exception. The copyright owner has the exclusive right to reproduce the work in whole or in substantial part, and to communicate it to the public, as well as to authorize others to do so. Copyright protection arises automatically upon creation of an original work; it is not contingent on any registration or display of a copyright notice. As a result, there is a presumption of protection, and anyone challenging the existence or subsistence of the copyright must demonstrate that the author has ceased to be the owner.

The judgment then turned to section 38.1 of the LDA, which establishes the framework for statutory damages. Where the infringement is for commercial purposes, as was the case here, a court may award a sum between CAD 500 and CAD 20,000 for each work infringed, in such amount as it considers just. When setting statutory damages within that range, the court must consider factors such as the good or bad faith of the parties, the conduct of the infringer, the need to deter similar conduct, and the nature and extent of the infringement. The Court also noted that the Québec Civil Code governs the burden of proof in civil matters, requiring a party to prove the facts supporting its allegations on the balance of probabilities, but that the LDA alters this framework by imposing on the defendant a duty to rebut the presumption that the work is protected and that the plaintiff holds the copyright.

The contractual or quasi-contractual framework arose through the wording of Archimed’s invoice. The explicit clause stated that the supplied material was for the exclusive use of the named client and that no transfer or third-party use was permitted without Archimed’s prior written consent. This clause directly contradicted Omega Mantels’ assumption that the Client could freely grant rights to third parties. The Court viewed this wording as strong evidence that Archimed had never given up its rights to allow uncontrolled third-party dissemination and that Omega Mantels could not simply rely on the fact that the Client had paid for the photos.

Within this legal and documentary context, the Court examined Omega Mantels’ evidentiary burden. Because Archimed’s copyright was presumed to exist and subsist, and because Archimed clearly asserted ownership and lack of authorization, Omega Mantels had to show that Archimed had transferred or licensed the relevant rights, or that some other legal basis justified its use. The Court found that Omega Mantels failed to do so: it had not conducted any serious verification, had not obtained written confirmation from Archimed, and had ignored both explanatory emails and the formal demand.

Court’s analysis and reasoning

On the first main issue—whether Omega Mantels had infringed Archimed’s copyright—the Court concluded that the infringement was clearly established. Archimed had created the photographs as an artistic work, retained copyright as the first owner, and expressly limited usage to the Client via the invoice clause. There was no evidence of any assignment or licence from Archimed authorizing Omega Mantels to reproduce or communicate the work to the public. The photographs were plainly used for Omega Mantels’ commercial promotion on its website and social media pages, all without any discussion about payment or licence with Archimed.

Omega Mantels’ claim that it “generally obtains all rights” from photographers in its normal dealings was considered irrelevant and unsupported by documents in this case. The company’s representative admitted that no specific steps were taken to confirm whether the Client could legally transfer or grant rights in these particular photographs. The Court rejected the idea that the mere payment by the Client to Archimed for the work necessarily conferred a blanket right to sublicense or transfer usage rights to third parties. In particular, the Court considered the invoice wording and the visible presence of Archimed’s logo on some of the published photos as clear indicators that Archimed remained the rights holder and that any wider use would require Archimed’s consent.

Furthermore, the Court found that Omega Mantels had not discharged its burden under the LDA to rebut the statutory presumption of protection and subsisting rights. Archimed had not renounced its rights in favour of the Client, and no documentation or credible evidence to the contrary was presented. Instead, on the evidence, Omega Mantels had acted with a degree of carelessness and even negligence. It relied on the Client’s relationship and “exchange of good services” without checking the underlying legal rights, ignored Archimed’s emails and demand, and continued to use the photographs all the way up to and during the litigation. This conduct supported a finding of infringement and of a certain disregard for copyright compliance.

On the second main issue—the proper quantum of damages—the Court accepted that Archimed could elect statutory damages under section 38.1 of the LDA, and that the infringement was for commercial purposes. Archimed initially sought CAD 2,500 per photograph. The Court instead fixed the amount at CAD 2,000 per photograph, for a total of CAD 4,000. In doing so, it considered both the lower statutory threshold of CAD 500 and the maximum of CAD 20,000 per work, as well as the interpretive and contextual guidance from earlier case law on statutory damages for copyright violations.

A central consideration was the need for the award to be fair yet deterrent. The Court weighed several factors: Omega Mantels’ indifference to the rights of the photographer, the absence of serious verification, the lack of any reasonable justification, and its wilful blindness in reassurances given to the Client that there was no legal problem, even after Archimed had clearly explained the situation. The Court noted that Omega Mantels seemed preoccupied only with its own commercial interests and had continued the infringing use despite being on notice. In these circumstances, the Court found that a meaningful statutory damages award was necessary to dissuade similar future conduct and to signal that such disregard for copyright cannot be treated as trivial.

Turning to the counterclaim, the Court rejected Omega Mantels’ claim for CAD 2,500 in damages for stress and reputational harm. Given that Archimed’s claim was ultimately well-founded, there was no basis for characterizing its demand letter as abusive or “without right.” On the contrary, Archimed was exercising a legitimate remedy to enforce its copyright. Any negative consequences Omega Mantels experienced in its relationship with the Client flowed from its own decision to use the photos without verifying the necessary rights and from its refusal to address the issue once raised.

Outcome and orders

In the result, the Court of Québec, Small Claims Division, allowed Archimed’s claim in part and dismissed the counterclaim entirely. It ordered Omega Mantels and 7621396 Canada inc. to pay Archimed statutory damages of CAD 2,000 per photograph for the two infringing images, for a total principal sum of CAD 4,000. The defendants were also ordered to pay Archimed CAD 182 in judicial costs. In addition, the Court awarded legal interest and the additional indemnity provided for in article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec, calculated from the date of the demand letter on 22 April 2024. Because interest and the additional indemnity depend on statutory rates and the passage of time, the precise monetary value of those components could not be fixed in the judgment and must be calculated separately. Overall, the successful party in the litigation was Archimed Studio inc., in whose favour a total of CAD 4,182 (representing CAD 4,000 in damages plus CAD 182 in court costs) was ordered, together with legal interest and an additional indemnity which cannot be precisely quantified from the text of the decision alone.