Can a list of hyperlinks to someone else’s content enjoy copyright protection?
According to the Federal Court, it can. In Rayman v. Red Crayon Inc., 2026 FC 951, the Court held that copyright may subsist in the original selection and listing of hyperlinks to third-party materials and that significant damages can be awarded for unauthorized copying of the list. Shift Law acted for the successful plaintiff.
The decision provides useful guidance for businesses, consultants, educators, and other creators who compile and organize online resources as part of their work.
The dispute
The plaintiff, a STEM curriculum developer, created a series of educational resources for the defendant pursuant to a consulting agreement. Among the resources works were five quick reference guides designed to help instructors navigate LEGO educational materials more efficiently.
The guides contained curated hyperlinks directing users to materials hosted on LEGO’s website, organized in a manner intended to simplify lesson planning and delivery.
The dispute arose after the defendant continued to display the guides after refusing to pay the plaintiff’s invoices. The plaintiff sued the defendant for copyright infringement, arguing that the defendant’s license to use the guides was contingent on payment of the plaintiff’s invoices.
The issue
The plaintiff moved for default judgment after the defendant failed to file a defence.
A central issue before the Court on the default judgment motion was the nature of the works in which the plaintiff was asserting copyright.
The plaintiff did not claim copyright in the LEGO materials themselves or in the individual hyperlinks. Instead, he asserted copyright in the compilation created through his selection, sequencing, and organization of those links within the guides.
The Court accepted that characterization.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, it held that the guides were copyright-protected compilations.
The decision reinforces the principle that originality may lie in the creative selection and arrangement of existing materials, even where those materials themselves are not original to the author.
The Court dismissed the motion initially, finding gaps in some of the evidence relating to the works at issue. But the plaintiff was granted leave to renew the motion on a more complete evidentiary record.
The court’s decision
On the renewed motion, the plaintiff addressed each of the deficiencies identified by the Court.
The plaintiff’s additional materials included further explanation of the nature of the works at issue and how the defendant was using them.
Satisfied that the evidentiary gaps had been addressed, the Court granted default judgment and awarded statutory damages in the amount of $13,000 per work and $5,000 in costs.
In assessing the amount of statutory damages, the Court considered the parties’ consulting agreement alongside section 38.1 of the Copyright Act.
Although the plaintiff was owed approximately $75,000 under the contract, the Court noted that those unpaid fees related to a broader range of consulting services, not just the creation of the copyrighted works.
Taking that into account, along with the statutory factors under section 38.1 of the Copyright Act, the Court awarded $13,000 for each of the six infringed works, for a total of $78,000.
Why this decision matters
The decision confirms that copyright can subsist in a mere index or in a list of links to third party works.
It is also a good example of how the Federal Court will rely on evidence of the plaintiff’s loss, in this case unpaid invoice, in assessing the statutory damages per work infringed.
Procedurally, it is also a good example of how a motion for default judgment must be supported by detailed evidence and how, when there are gaps in the initial record, the Court may grant leave to fill them.
How Shift Law can help
Shift Law has extensive experience in copyright litigation, including default and summary judgment motions. Please contact us if you’re considering commencing a copyright infringement action or if you’ve been sued for copyright infringement.
Frequently asked questions
Below are answers to common questions about copyright protection for curated lists of hyperlinks and the Federal Court’s decision in Rayman v. Red Crayon Inc.
Can a researched and organized list of hyperlinks to someone else’s content be protected by copyright?
Yes. A list of hyperlinks may qualify for copyright protection where the originality lies in the selection, sequencing and organization of the links, and the resulting compilation reflects sufficient skill and judgment.
What did the Federal Court decide in Rayman v. Red Crayon Inc.?
In Rayman v. Red Crayon Inc., 2026 FC 951, the Federal Court confirmed that copyright can subsist in a curated list of third-party hyperlinks where the selection, sequencing and organization of those links constitute an original compilation.
Why is it important to address copyright ownership in a consulting agreement?
Where copyrighted works are created under a consulting agreement, the agreement should clearly address ownership and licensing rights. Doing so can help avoid disputes over who owns the works and under what circumstances they may be used.
