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​ 

June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction