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 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation
July 24, 2026
As food innovation continues to accelerate, manufacturers are increasingly introducing ingredients derived from new sources, produced using novel technologies, or lacking a significant history of human consumption. While these innovations create new opportunities for the food industry, they also raise important questions regarding consumer safety. For this reason, many jurisdictions, including Thailand, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore, require a premarket safety assessment for novel food ingredients before they can be placed on the market. The objective of this assessment is to ensure that each ingredient is safe for its intended use and level of consumption, does not present toxicological, allergenic, microbiological, or nutritional concerns, and will not mislead consumers. Scientific authorities typically evaluate the ingredient’s identity, manufacturing process, composition, specifications, anticipated dietary exposure, toxicological information, nutritional impact, and history of use before determining whether it can be marketed. Against this background, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently took an important step toward improving regulatory transparency by publishing, for the first time, a consolidated public list of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process, including substances determined to be novel foods and those determined not to fall within the novel food category. The list identifies the approved substances, the corresponding manufacturers or importers, approval dates, and the approved conditions of use. Although the publication does not change the existing legal framework governing novel food approvals, it provides businesses with greater visibility into the Thai FDA’s regulatory precedents and the types of substances that have previously been accepted through the safety assessment process. The full announcement is available on the Thai FDA’s website. As the list is now publicly available, it also provides useful insight into the types of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process.
July 24, 2026
Indonesia has updated its fee framework for intellectual property (IP)-related government services, with implications for IP owners, licensees, lenders, digital platforms, and businesses operating in the country. Government Regulation No. 30 of 2026 on Types and Tariffs of Non-Tax State Revenue Applicable to the Ministry of Law (GR 30/2026) was promulgated on July 2, 2026, and will take effect on August 1, 2026. Key Takeaways GR 30/2026, which replaces the relevant IP service fees under Government Regulation No. 45 of 2024, reorganizes the fee schedule into separate categories for copyright, industrial designs, patents, layout designs of integrated circuits, trade secrets, trademarks, geographical indications, IP enforcement, and other categories. The most commercially relevant changes include a new copyright recordation tariff exemption for songs and music, higher fees for several trademark and geographical indication services, new IP enforcement service fees, and a new fee type for registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects. In addition, this is the first major update for trademark fees in approximately 10 years. GR 30/2026 is significant not only as a fee update but also as a further indication of Indonesia’s increasing recognition of IP as a financeable commercial asset. By expressly assigning fees to the registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects, the regulation places IP-backed collateral filings within the Ministry of Law’s administrative service framework. While GR 30/2026 does not create a new secured-transactions regime, this development is relevant for lenders, borrowers, and IP owners structuring financing arrangements secured by trademarks, patents, copyrights, industrial designs, or other registrable IP rights in Indonesia. Copyright: New Fee Exemption for Songs and Music Recordation For copyright, GR 30/2026 creates a fee-exempt category for recordation of works or related-rights products for songs or music, while maintaining a separate category for other works and related-rights products. It
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to