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

December 25, 2015

Using Photos from the Internet: Copyright Ownership and Orphan Works

Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

A picture is worth a thousand words. It’s an old adage, but in today’s accelerated digital economy, the concept is more relevant than ever. With more and more competition for consumers’ attention, many businesses—from global advertising agencies to local mom-and-pop shops—are turning to the Internet to find compelling images that reinforce their brand messaging.

Tied to this voracious demand, there is now a seemingly endless supply of photos and other images available online, and many businesses are using them liberally in their websites, blogs, brochures, and other materials. But where these pictures come from, who the original creators are, and who owns the copyright over them is often unknown. These are important issues, because businesses can’t freely use photos found online. Instead, they need to identify who owns copyright over an image and obtain authorization (through licensing fees or other arrangements) in order to use it.

Businesses face a real challenge, though, when they devote their best efforts to identify who owns a copyrighted image, but they are unable to do so. In legal terminology, when it’s not possible to identify the owner of a copyrighted work, we refer to the copyrighted material as an “orphan work”—that is, a work whose author or owner is unknown. For orphan works, requesting permission from the owner to use their works for reproduction or creating a new work can become an insurmountable task, which leaves businesses that want to use these images in a difficult position.

Rights of Copyright Owners

Copyright owners have exclusive rights over their works, including rights of reproduction, adaptation, dissemination, and licensing. Any use of a copyright owner’s photos without authorization may result in copyright infringement, which leads to both civil and criminal liabilities.

It may also result in the infringement of rights management information if the information that is used to identify the owner of the copyrighted work (e.g., author names, signatures, watermarks, etc.), which appears on the work, is deleted or modified. This is a criminal offense.

Copyright Works of Unidentified Owners

Orphan works are indirectly addressed in Sections 20 and 62 of the Thai Copyright Act. Section 20 states that works created by a pseudonymous or anonymous author will be protected for 50 years from the date of authorship. If the work is published during this period, the protection will last for 50 years from the date of first publication.

While orphan works are not strictly the same as anonymous or pseudonymous works, copyright law ensures that a work is likely to be protected even if the author is unknown. This protection may last beyond death, in which case the work would become a true orphan because the copyright owner would not be available to assert his or her rights.

Section 62 describes the presumptions of copyright ownership that apply in litigation, setting out the presumption that ownership of a copyright work which bears no name or claim of ownership will vest in the printer or publisher of the work. This does not, however, address who owns the work if the printer or publisher has subsequently gone out of business.

Under Sections 20 and 62, it is difficult for potential licensors to identify the owners of orphan works. It is a time-consuming process, and using orphan works may give rise to legal actions and/or financial claims to prevent further use by potential licensors.

Searching for a Copyright Owner

The Copyright Office of the Department of Intellectual Property provides a copyright recordation service that anyone can use to search for the identity of a copyright owner of a work for accreditation and/or licensing. However, the copyright recordation system is used on a voluntary basis, meaning that a limited number of copyrighted works have been recorded with the Copyright Office. This means that a substantial number of copyright works in Thailand have no formal recordation of their owners.

This is a challenge that exists not only here in Thailand but also globally. Some academic experts contend that if a potential user of a given work has performed a diligent search for the owner of the copyright—often by searching Copyright Office records and databases—the user of the work should be entitled to limited liability if the copyright owner later claims infringement. That is, if a business has tried its best to find the owner and failed, this effort should provide some level of defense in case of future legal proceedings.

In addition, other jurisdictions have discussed a range of creative options, including compulsory license schemes or the involvement of the government in the process of publication of proposals to use orphan works and royalty-fee deposits.

While these potential solutions sound attractive in theory, none of them have yet been implemented in practice here in Thailand. As a result, businesses face potential legal liability if they use photos that are orphan works in their materials. While this area of the law continues to develop, businesses need to be wary about the sources of their photos and other images. It is best to err on the side of caution and, wherever possible, use images only where copyright ownership can be clearly traced.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 15, 2026
Ambush marketing refers to a strategy in which a business associates itself with an event, campaign, or brand without paying for official sponsorship rights. The tactic is most visible in sports, concerts, and festivals, where official sponsors have invested substantially for exclusivity. Ambush marketers may use suggestive wording, event-themed imagery, athlete endorsements, venue-adjacent promotions, or social media campaigns implying a commercial connection with the event. Common Forms of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing typically takes one of the following forms: Direct ambushing: using event names, logos, or mascots suggesting authorization Coattail ambushing: sponsoring an athlete or broadcaster connected with the event Subtle ambushing: themed advertising, venue-adjacent campaigns, or similar visual cues The legal analysis in each case turns on whether the marketing crosses from permissible event-based advertising into infringement, passing off, deception, or wrongful exploitation of goodwill, and the risk assessment is necessarily fact-specific. Thailand has no dedicated ambush marketing statute, so legality depends on execution. A campaign that merely comments on a public event may be permissible, but one that uses protected marks, creates consumer confusion, misrepresents sponsorship status, or makes unsubstantiated claims may trigger liability under various Thai laws, as laid out below. Ambush Marketing and Thailand’s Trademark Act The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) is the primary tool for addressing campaigns that use registered trademarks, event names, logos, mascots, or confusingly similar signs. The law gives registered trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark for registered goods, and infringement risk arises when a nonsponsor uses an event mark or a confusingly similar sign in advertising. Even referential or playful use may create liability if it causes public confusion as to sponsorship or commercial connection. The law also preserves passing-off claims for unregistered marks. This matters because event names, taglines, or mascots may not always be
July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes