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​ 

July 21, 2025
Distinctiveness is a fundamental requirement for a trademark’s registration and protection under Thai law. The Thai courts typically assess distinctiveness based on a mark’s inherent characteristics rather than its use, as proving acquired distinctiveness through use requires substantial evidence, including the duration of use, extent of distribution and promotional efforts. However, the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP & IT Court) has recently ruled that the figurative mark WEPLAY had acquired distinctiveness through use – an uncommon ruling under Thai trademark law. Subsequently, the Court of Appeal for Specialised Cases affirmed the mark’s inherent distinctiveness based on a holistic assessment of its components. This article discusses the criteria for proving both inherent and acquired distinctiveness, offering examples from both courts to provide valuable insights into case preparation and understanding of how the courts assess distinctiveness. Background In 2017 the plaintiff filed a trademark application for the mark depicted below for goods in Class 28, including toy building blocks: The registrar rejected the application on the grounds of non-distinctiveness under Section 7 of the Trademark Act. The plaintiff appealed to the Board of Trademarks, which considered that, when the term ‘weplay’ is used for goods in Class 28, it is descriptive of the nature of the goods applied for as “playthings”. Therefore, ‘weplay’ was deemed nondistinctive under Section 7, Paragraph 2(2) of the Trademark Act. IP & IT Court decision In 2024 the IP & IT Court ruled that the term ‘weplay’ is not a coined or invented word; instead, it is a combination of ‘we’ and ‘play’, conveying the meaning of ‘we play’. When the term is used for goods in Class 28, it describes the nature of the goods as “playthings”. Consequently, the mark was deemed non-distinctive. However, the court considered the evidence presented by the plaintiff,
July 14, 2025
Life sciences specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins have updated the firm’s guide to pharmaceutical data exclusivity regulations and practices in Southeast Asia. This guide contains quick-reference information on the availability of data exclusivity protections and limitations in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. Developing and launching a new drug on a commercial scale requires an enormous amount of time and investment in research and development (R&D), including pre-clinical testing and clinical trials. When considering the aggregate amount of drug development costs, it is important to recognize that this includes not only the investment in developing new drugs that get approved by a government food and drug regulator and are successfully brought to market, but also the R&D expenditures on a large number of potential pharmaceutical compounds and products that never actually make it to market. In particular, considerable investment is required in order to conduct and produce clinical trial data—to prove safety, efficacy and effectiveness of a new drug—that would warrant marketing approval by the regulatory authority. Such data is proprietary in nature and highly valuable for a research-based pharmaceutical company that develops an original drug. On the other hand, patent law typically confers generic drug manufacturers with the ability to engage in various preparatory activities with a view to obtaining marketing approval for a generic product before the patent for the original drug expires (commonly known as a “Bolar provision”). Since a generic drug maker may submit an application for marketing approval of a generic product before the relevant patent expires, the extent to which the drug originator’s data submitted to the regulatory authority is protected—or in other words, the extent to which the generic company may rely on the drug originator’s previously filed data, which underpins the safety and efficacy of the drug, to support
June 30, 2025
Vietnam is making notable strides in decentralization, aiming to grant greater autonomy to local government entities to streamline administrative procedures. As part of this effort, the government issued Decree No. 133/2025/ND-CP on decentralization of state management of the Ministry of Science and Technology dated June 12, 2025 (Decree 133). Effective from July 1, 2025, Decree 133 decentralizes and delegates numerous state management functions—including in intellectual property (IP) and technology transfer—to provincial-level People’s Committees (PCs). This reform signals a profound shift in how IP rights are administered and enforced across Vietnam. While this offers new opportunities for IP owners, agents, and innovators, it also introduces additional operational complexities. Impact on IP and Technology Transfer Decree 133 significantly reallocates responsibilities in IP and technology transfer, primarily to provincial-level PCs. Provincial PCs and other provincial authorities are now empowered to handle a wide range of tasks, including but not limited to the following: Issuance of duplicates and reissuance of certificates of registration. Registration of license agreements for the transfer of usage rights for industrial property objects (e.g., trademarks, patents) and recording amendments, extensions, or early terminations of such agreements. Enforcing decisions on compulsory licensing of patent use rights. Evaluation and approval of technology transfer contracts—a key step in facilitating localized technological advancements. Permitting the establishment of foreign-invested scientific organizations and their branches, to encourage foreign direct investment in local R&D and technology development. Approval of provincial-level R&D tasks, aligning with local socio-economic development priorities. Legal Implications The decentralization and delegation brought forth by Decree 133 carry several significant legal implications: Echoing Decree 133, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam issued Notification No. 2351/TB-SHTT on June 26, 2025, announcing the cessation of 19 administrative procedures at the national level. Specifically, from July 1, 2025, the IP Office will no longer accept requests related
June 27, 2025
Three American giants are actively protecting their intellectual property rights against generative AI, as two legal battles commence on both sides of the Atlantic. In the UK, Seattle-based media company Getty Images accuses UK-based Stability AI of multiple IP infringements. In the US, The Walt Disney Company and Universal Studios are teaming up against Midjourney, an AI startup, with their main ground being copyright infringement. Both cases are centered around questions legal minds have been posing since the introduction of generative AI: Is the output of generative AI an infringement? And who is ultimately responsible for the output, the platform or the user? Getty Images v. Stability AI Getty initially filed a claim in the High Court in 2023, which resulted in Stability applying for reverse summary judgment on the grounds that Getty had no real prospect of success, arguing that their operations took place outside the UK. However, the High Court judge hearing the case decided that the claims brought by Getty did have a real prospect of succeeding in court. Despite this, Stability saw a small victory when the court ruled that the representative action brought by Getty would not succeed due to the difficulties in identifying who qualified for the class. The proposed class was comprised of 50,000 rightsholders who alleged their rights were also infringed. Stability was successful in arguing that identifying these individuals would be challenging due to the unclear definition of the class. This current trial is centered around four main grounds: Copyright infringement. Getty accuses Stability of using content that Getty owns or has an exclusive license for when training their model, Stable Diffusion, resulting in the generated output containing substantial parts of that content. Getty is also alleging secondary copyright infringement, arguing that Stability is importing an article into the UK