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​ 

August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one