You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

August 24, 2012

Using Copyrighted Materials from the Internet

Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

You are preparing a slide presentation for a speech or an internal company meeting and want to use some photos you found on a Google Images search in your slides. Is it necessary to ask permission for all the photos you want to use? If you really want to use them and are willing to give credit, what form should this take for your use to be deemed sufficiently appropriate and legitimate?

With the rapid expansion of the internet and the broad transmission of information online, many internet users are convinced that materials found online are free to use. Although everyone perceives that images, videos, and writings found online must be owned by someone, the current practice of using others’ works on the internet remains ambiguous.

Right of Copyright Owner

Thai copyright law protects the original expression of creative ideas such as songs, artwork, writing, films, software, and video games. It provides automatic protection for original works without the prerequisite of registration. This protection can also cover works created in almost all countries. Thus, most materials you find, see, or listen to on the internet will be protected and owned by a copyright owner.

The copyright owner enjoys all the rights provided by copyright law including reproduction, adaptation, dissemination, and licensing. This means the copyright owner may restrict or even deny public access to the work or charge for access or the right to make copies. It is up to the copyright owner to decide on the conditions for granting the use of the work. As a general rule, the use of someone else’s work without their permission can be either a civil or criminal offence or both.

Copy and Paste

So can you copy and paste material from the internet without the copyright owner’s permission? The answer could be “Yes,” if such use complies with appropriate practices and strictly falls under the exceptions to copyright infringement.

Strictly speaking, the rights of a copyright owner do not include the “right to use.” Thus, the mere use of copyrighted works can sometimes fall under the exceptions to infringement as outlined by the Copyright Act B.E. 2537 (1994). The act of “use” is typically inherent in the reproduction, adaptation, or dissemination of the works, which are the very rights of the copyright owner. Therefore, any kind of use without informing or acknowledging the copyright owner can constitute copyright infringement.

Exceptions to Copyright Infringement

Thailand’s copyright law acknowledges certain exceptions to copyright infringement. The Copyright Act provides general exceptions to infringement for acts that:

  • do not conflict with normal exploitation of the copyrighted work by the owner of the copyright; and
  • do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate right of the copyright owner.

Acceptable uses under the law include “use for personal benefit,” “research or study of work that is not for profit,” and “reasonable citation or quotation in part with an acknowledgment of the ownership of such work,” among others.

The copyright law also states that an exception to copyright infringement exists if proper acknowledgement of the copyright ownership is made, provided that such use of the work must not conflict with the normal exploitation and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate right of the owner of the copyright.

The most frequent problem for people attempting to meet these requirements is incorrect acknowledgment of the actual copyright owner. Just because a video is posted on YouTube, it does not mean YouTube LLC is the copyright owner. Similarly, if you find images on a website, you cannot automatically conclude the company that owns the website is the owner of such images.

Your attempt to qualify your use as an exception to infringement also must be considered in relation to the nature of each work, the amount of the work that is copied and, most importantly, the potential damage for the actual copyright owner.

Best Practice

Material that is publicly accessible on the internet should be assumed to have copyright protection and treated accordingly. With that in mind, it is important to seek out the rightful owner before distribution of the work. Whether or not you can freely use the work depends on the copyright holder’s intent.

Below are the recommended practices to avoid committing copyright infringement:

  • Create your own works. Copyrights do not protect ideas. Therefore, similar works with similar ideas can be created and copyrighted legally, as long as it is your original expression fixed in a tangible medium.
  • Use copyright-friendly works from sources that explicitly state the use you are contemplating is permitted. There are many royalty-free works available on the internet.
  • Seek permission by contacting the webmaster (administrator or owner of the webpage). If you receive no response but would still like to use their copyrighted materials, consider using them within the requirements of exceptions to infringement discussed above while properly acknowledging the owner. You should also keep evidence of your attempt to request the owner’s permission to produce later, if necessary.
  • Obtain written permission to use others’ copyright works. After receiving permission, make sure such permission is in writing in order to be kept and used as evidence, if necessary.
  • Most importantly, your use of others’ works must not conflict or compete with the original copyright owner’s use, particularly commercially.

In reality, not all copyright owners will demand large royalty fees to use their works. Many authors and artists are willing to have their works disseminated in the public without royalty fees. However, most will prefer their names to be cited as the owners of such works. At the same time, many internet users do not actually have the intention to make a slavish copy of others’ works and distribute them commercially.

In essence, the use of others’ copyrighted work can fall under exceptions to copyright infringement if such use does not cause conflict with the normal exploitation, or prejudice the legitimate right, of the owner of the copyrighted work. In addition, the appropriate acknowledgment of the actual ownership of the copyright in such works is fundamental.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 24, 2025
Online shopping in Thailand is more accessible than ever, with global platforms, local social media shops, and entertainment-driven social commerce enabling instant purchases. However, this convenience comes with rising concerns over digital intellectual property (IP) infringement, including counterfeit goods, pirated content, and unauthorized brand usage. At first glance, online platforms appear to offer quick solutions. Most major e-commerce sites, social media channels, and social commerce platforms provide “notice and takedown” systems, where IP owners can file complaints and request the removal of listings that infringe IP rights, such as trademarks and copyrights. These tools are certainly useful, as seeing a fake product vanish from a platform feels like progress. But the reality is less reassuring. The counterfeit goods themselves remain in warehouses, markets, or shops, ready to be resold. Sellers whose accounts are taken down often return within days under new names or accounts. In other words, a takedown is like cutting weeds without pulling out the roots: they always grow back. While notice and takedown tools are widely available and can be managed internally by most IP owners, their impact is often short-lived. IP owners seeking more effective, lasting protection need to take a more strategic and multilayered approach. The same applies to online piracy. Unauthorized streaming websites that offer free access to movies, TV shows, or sports broadcasts have become widespread in Thailand. To combat this, rightsholders can request website blocking under the Computer Crime Act, through the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society and the courts. Once requests are approved, internet service providers are ordered to block access to infringing sites. Blocking orders can be effective in disrupting large-scale piracy operations, but they also face limitations—pirate sites frequently reappear under new domains. Strategic Protection Whether the infringing material is physical counterfeit goods or intangible streaming content,
September 4, 2025
On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as
August 25, 2025
Indonesia’s current regulations on franchises, as stipulated under Government Regulation No. 35/2024 on Franchising and its implementing regulation, Ministry of Trade (MOT) Regulation No. 71/2019 regarding Implementation of Franchising, highlight fundamental changes in franchise registration. These changes have introduced additional complexities and challenges in the franchise registration procedure, making it more difficult for franchise owners to navigate the process. New procedure Franchise applications are still submitted through the Online Single Submission (OSS) portal of the Capital Investment Coordinating Board (BKPM). However, the new procedure requires each applicant, including foreign franchisors, to have an OSS account and a business registration number (NIB) issued by BKPM. An application for franchise registration must be submitted under the applicant’s own account—submissions can no longer be made through the account of a consultant. Once a franchise application is submitted, the authority will distribute the submission to the MOT—the authorized ministry for franchise registration. Any notification or decision upon the registration made by the MOT will be available in the OSS system. Applicants should regularly monitor the status of the franchise application because no notifications will be sent to applicants to alert them of any deficiency. Here is the summary of the new procedure for franchisors: Notable Requirements The disclosure document, or prospectus, is the key focus for the MOT in examining a franchise registration for a franchisor. This document is subject to thorough scrutiny by the MOT to ensure that all mandatory information meets the requirements set in the franchise regulations. The current regulations specifically require that the mandatory clause “business system” in the prospectus cover operational standards and procedures, which should include human resource management, administration, operational management, standard operating methods, business location selection, business premises design, employee requirements, and marketing strategies. Other clauses that are equally important to pay attention to are:
August 21, 2025
Although the “passing off” principle has sometimes faced criticism for potentially broadening trademark protection—particularly in cases involving unregistered or unconventional marks like shapes, scents, or sounds—it serves an essential purpose. It safeguards the rights of business owners and shields consumers from deception, ensuring fair competition and reflecting the realities of modern commerce. What is passing off, and why is registrability not required? The passing-off principle is a legal concept rooted in English law, aimed at preventing a person from falsely representing or using a mark similar to another’s in a way that causes consumers to mistakenly believe the goods or services come from the same source. Under Thai law, the passing-off principle is provided under Section 46 of the Thai Trademark Act, which states: No person shall be entitled to bring legal proceedings to prevent or to recover damages for the infringement of an unregistered trademark. The provisions of this Section shall not affect the right of the owner of an unregistered trademark to bring legal proceedings against any person for passing off goods as those of the owner of the trademark. The passing-off principle can be interpreted as a practical legal concept. It does not require proof that the mark is registrable or meets the registrability criteria under trademark law. It is sufficient to show that the mark has established goodwill and that the other party’s use of a similar mark is likely to confuse consumers, making it a straightforward and effective tool for protecting brand assets. Requiring a claimant to prove that an unregistered mark could have been registered would undermine the very function of passing off. The doctrine was conceived precisely to fill the gaps left by the registration system. Imposing registrability criteria would nullify its function and leave many commercially valuable identifiers unprotected. If the