If you are the kind of business that thinks scrolling a food blog is the same thing as a licensing agreement, the Federal Court has some very current news for you.
The case is Matsumoto v Canuck Eats Inc., decided by the Federal Court in 2025 and reported publicly in January 2026. This is not a dusty copyright decision pulled from the archives. It is a modern reminder aimed squarely at how businesses actually behave online today.
The facts are refreshingly simple. A professional food photographer and blogger discovered that Canuck Eats Inc., a food delivery service, had copied and displayed his food photographs on its website to promote restaurants. These were not stock images. They were original works. He owned the copyright. No licence had been granted. No attribution was provided. No payment was made.
When the photographer asked the company to stop using the images, it did not. When he raised licensing, it still did not. When litigation followed, the company largely failed to participate in the proceeding, which is rarely a winning strategy in Federal Court.
The Court had little difficulty finding copyright infringement. The photographs were reproduced and communicated to the public without permission. A permanent injunction was issued preventing any further use of the images. The Court also awarded damages of three thousand dollars per photograph, punitive damages of two thousand dollars, and approximately twenty five hundred dollars in legal costs.
That is a meaningful bill for what likely started as a marketing shortcut.
Punitive damages are worth pausing on. Canadian courts do not hand them out casually. Here, they were awarded to send a clear message that ignoring a rights holder, refusing to engage, and continuing infringing behaviour is not just careless, it is sanction worthy.
The decision also includes a quieter but important lesson for creators. Another individual involved in the proceeding was unsuccessful because they could not establish personal ownership of the copyright in the images. Being involved in content creation, posting online, or running a blog is not the same as owning the rights. If you want to enforce copyright, the ownership trail needs to be clear.
Taken together, Matsumoto v Canuck Eats Inc. reinforces several principles that businesses still seem determined to test. The internet is not a free content library. Photos do no become public property because they are easy to copy. And ignoring a polite email from a creator does not make the problem go away. It usually makes it more expensive.
For businesses, particularly those in food, retail, tech, and platform based services, this decision is a reminder that marketing teams need legal guardrails. Content should be sourced properly, licences should be documented, and takedown requests should trigger action, not silence.
For creators, the case is reassuring. Canadian courts are prepared to protect original work and to award damages that are more than symbolic when that work is misused.
The moral of the story is simple. Enjoy the food photos. Admire them. Bookmark them. Just do not use them unless you have paid for the privilege.
Bon appétit.
