Ruling awards content creator damages for copyright infringement
In an action for copyright and moral rights infringement, Canada’s Federal Court partly granted a second motion for default judgment sought by two content creators and professional photographers and prevented the defendant from reproducing two food images without authorization.
In Matsumoto v. Canuck Eats Inc., 2025 FC 2017, the two plaintiffs snapped photographs of food and displayed the images on their blogs and social media platforms. Around January 2024, the plaintiffs discovered the unauthorized use of their pictures on a food delivery service website.
On June 6, 2024, the plaintiffs filed the underlying action for infringement of copyright and moral rights. They asserted copyright in 13 photographs listed in Schedule A and alleged that the defendant reproduced their works without permission on the website.
The plaintiffs filed two motions for default judgment against the defendant under rr. 210 and 369 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106.
In response to the first motion, the court determined that the evidence established the defendant’s default, but insufficiently supported granting judgment in the plaintiffs’ favour.
Infringement found
The Federal Court partly granted the second motion for default judgment and permanently prevented the defendant from:
- unauthorized reproduction of images 1 and 2 of Schedule A, over which the first plaintiff was the copyright owner
- representations attributing any authorship in and to the two images
The court ordered the defendant to pay the first plaintiff $6,000 in damages, $2,000 in punitive damages, and $2,513.52 in costs, as claimed in the bill of costs.
The court rejected all other requests in the plaintiffs’ motion. The court acknowledged ongoing issues concerning the second plaintiff’s standing to seek judgment, which prevented it from making copyright infringement findings relating to images 3 to 13 of Schedule A.
On the other hand, the court ruled that the first plaintiff was the author and copyright owner of images 1 and 2 of Schedule A. Thus, the court limited its analysis concerning copyright infringement to those two images.
The court held that the evidence – including screenshots, a corporate profile report, and a Google business profile – showed:
- the defendant’s infringement in Canada of the copyright in images 1 and 2 of Schedule A
- unauthorized reproductions of the two images on the food delivery service website
- a sufficient connection between the defendant and the website
- the content provider’s situs, which was in Canada
Regarding moral rights, the court found the evidence insufficient to establish infringement under ss. 28.2(1)(b) and 28.2(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1985.
First, regarding s. 28.2(1)(b), the court acknowledged that screenshots showed the works’ use on the food delivery service website in association with a service.
The court accepted that the plaintiffs’ affidavits showed subjective evidence on how the reproductions might impact their honour and reputation. However, the court explained that the affidavits showed no objective evidence of prejudice.
Second, regarding s. 28.2(1)(a), the court saw no distortion or mutilation of the relevant images, while any cropping or resizing appeared minimal.
As for damages, the court decided to award the first plaintiff $3,000 for each of the two photographs infringed, rather than the $6,000 per photograph sought. Regarding punitive damages, the court opted for a modest amount, given the limited evidence provided.
