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

June 5, 2019

Using People’s Images on Television: Copyright and Right of Publicity

Informed Counsel

People are often pleased to see themselves or their work on television, but there are some important legal considerations pertaining to these situations. For example, in many television shows, particularly game shows, images of people may appear on the screen during a broadcast and are sometimes even used as part of the show. This situation highlights issues of whether unauthorized use of another person’s image in a television show gives rise to potential copyright infringement claims under Thai copyright law, and whether the person portrayed in the photograph has any right to prevent unauthorized use of his or her image for commercial purposes.    

In order to address these issues, it is necessary to know what the law says and how it would apply to each context. In doing so, it is useful to note that this situation is underpinned by two separate legal concepts: (1) copyright and (2) the right of publicity. Though they are brought together in this context, each has its own requirements and stipulations that must be respected.  

Copyright Infringement and Exception   

Photographs are protected under copyright law as artistic works under Section 4 of the Thai Copyright Act. The owner of the work is generally the photographer, not the person who appears in the photograph. However, this ownership may depend on specific factors, such as employment, whether a licensing agreement exists, whether the photograph was commissioned, and so on.   

Copyright owners have exclusive rights over their works, including rights of reproduction, adaptation, communication to the public, and licensing. Therefore, a copyright owner’s exclusive rights may be violated when the visual image, which is a copyrighted work, is displayed and reproduced on television without authorization from the copyright owner. 

In addition, reproduction on television may also result in the infringement of rights management information if the information used to identify the owner of a copyrighted work (e.g., author name, signature, digital watermark, etc.), which appears on the work, is deleted or modified.   

Nevertheless, there is an exception under Section 39 of the Thai Copyright Act stating that the photographing, filming, or broadcasting of a work of which an artistic work is a component shall not be deemed an infringement of copyright in the artistic work. However, in order to qualify for this exception, the use of others’ images on television shows must strictly meet the following conditions:

  • The photograph must not be reproduced or adapted from the original. This is because the exception under Section 39 is limited to photographing, filming, or broadcasting an image that constitutes an original artistic work.
  • The photograph itself must not be a work that infringes any other person’s copyright.
  • The photograph must be used as a component part of the principle action on a television show, not as an essential element of the show.

Normally, permission is required if a photograph to be used is considered a “substantial part” of the show. However, there is no explicit rule regarding how much of a work may be used without prior permission. Exactly what constitutes a “substantial part” will be considered on a case-by-case basis, depending on the nature of the show and the particular circumstances (e.g., whether the photograph featured on the show is the principal object of attention).

Right of Publicity   

In some jurisdictions, extra caution should be taken when using a public figure’s portrait in a television show without their consent in order to gain some commercial benefit. This is because many countries recognize that a person’s image contains economic value that is supposed to be the result of the person’s own efforts. Each person is entitled to the right to use, control, and forbid unauthorized commercial usage of their own image, which is called “the right of publicity.”   

Although the right of publicity is often associated with public figures, every individual has a right to prevent unauthorized use of his or her image for commercial purposes. Right-of-publicity lawsuits are usually brought by public figures simply because those high-profile individuals are able to demonstrate that their identity has commercial value.   

In Thailand, there is no unified or dedicated regulatory framework regarding the right of publicity. Ownership of the copyright in a photograph of a public figure belongs to the person who created the image, subject to the conditions that the photographic work must not be illegally created and must not be an unlawful work, which is contrary to the public order or good morals.   

However, a public figure, or a private individual, whose image appears on television currently has a reasonable expectation to the right of privacy, which is implied under the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand.   

Furthermore, unauthorized use of an individual’s image could be claimed to violate Section 420 and Section 421 of the Civil and Commercial Code, if the person making the claim can prove that financial damage occurred due to the unauthorized exploitation of his or her image, which would be considered a wrongful act.

Best Practices   

To be on the safe side, it is best for television show producers to stay within the boundaries of the copyright law by getting prior permission from the copyright owner for the use of photographic works. Additionally, to avoid unnecessary problems in proving that a person’s image was not used in a manner that infringes the subject’s right to privacy or commercial value, prior written agreement between the parties should be secured, as using a person’s image without authorization is not worth the risk of a legal battle. While it can be impractical or even impossible to obtain written permission from every person included on film—especially when such inclusion is incidental—a clear understanding of the law in this area will help responsible parties to achieve the right balance between hyper-vigilance and negligence resulting in copyright infringement or violation of a person’s right of publicity.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
August 13, 2026
Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs. Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder. This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder. This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers. The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products
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