Using Images, Memes and Screenshots in Marketing: Singapore Copyright Rules for Brands

Last updated 19 October 2026 — by Adrian Tan, SDM. Marketing guidance, not legal advice. Section numbers refer to the Copyright Act 2021 as in force on 19 October 2026; we read section text through Singapore Statutes Online and the LawPlayer mirror, and quote short phrases only. Where Singapore law is untested, we say so.

Every brand’s social team has done it. A great photo of your café turns up on a food blogger’s Instagram, so you repost it. A trending meme fits your product launch perfectly, so the designer drops your logo on it. A customer’s glowing tweet becomes a screenshot in your next ad. A news photo illustrates your LinkedIn thought-leadership post. None of it feels like copying, because the internet made it all one click away.

Singapore’s Copyright Act 2021 does not see it that way. Copyright attaches automatically to photographs, artwork and video, with no registration needed, and a brand that publishes someone else’s work without a licence or a permitted use is exposed to damages, an account of profits and, since 2021, statutory damages of up to $10,000 per work. The Act also gave creators a new legal right to be credited, which changes how you should handle reposts even when you do have permission.

This guide explains the rules for using other people’s images, memes, screenshots and clips in Singapore marketing: fair use and how commercial use is treated, the credit rules, what happens when you get it wrong, platform takedowns, and where AI-generated images fit. It does not cover music, which has its own licensing system, or ownership of content you commission from creators, which we cover in our guide to user-generated content in Singapore.

The rules at a glance

Fair use: the defence everyone cites and few understand

Section 190 is short: it is “a permitted use of a work to make a fair use of the work”. Section 191 then says how a court decides whether a use is fair. All relevant matters must be considered, including four factors:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether it is of a commercial nature or for non-profit educational purposes.
2. The nature of the work. A creative photograph sits closer to the core of copyright than a factual chart.
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used. Posting a whole photo uses all of it.
4. The effect of the use on the potential market for, or value of, the work. If brands normally pay to license this kind of image, unlicensed use takes that fee away.

The 2021 Act dropped a fifth factor from the old law, which asked whether the work could be obtained within a reasonable time at an ordinary commercial price. That change helps users a little, but it does not change the basic arithmetic for marketing.

Commercial use is not fatal, but it is not neutral either

In Global Yellow Pages v Promedia [2017] 2 SLR 185, decided under the old Act, the Court of Appeal said commerciality “will not necessarily be fatal” to a finding of fair dealing. That is often quoted by marketers as though it means advertising can be fair use. It means something narrower: a commercial purpose does not end the analysis. It still counts against you under the first factor.

Run a typical brand use through all four factors and the picture is usually clear. Reposting a photographer’s whole image, to promote your own business, in exactly the market where photographers license images, scores badly on factors one, three and four. Our view, and it is an inference from the factors rather than a Singapore ruling, is that fair use is a poor foundation for any ad or promoted post built around someone else’s image. It is a better argument for genuine commentary, small extracts and transformative uses.

Criticism, review and news: the acknowledgement rule

Two kinds of use get special treatment in section 192, and both come with a condition that marketers often miss.

• Criticism or review (s 192(2)) is not fair unless the work is sufficiently acknowledged. There is no escape for impracticality: if you review a film, a book cover or a competitor’s campaign, name the work and its author.
• Reporting news (s 192(1)) also needs sufficient acknowledgement, unless acknowledgement is impossible for practical or other reasons.

For brands, this matters most in content marketing. A genuine review of an industry report, quoting a chart with credit, sits comfortably within these rules. A “news roundup” post that is really a lead-generation page decorated with press photos does not become news reporting because it has a date on it. Sections 193 and 194 deem certain uses of recordings and films for criticism or review, and uses for research or study, to be fair, but the research exception is not a route for marketing content.

Memes and parody: no exception, and no case law

Singapore’s Copyright Act 2021 has no standalone parody or satire exception; none appears in its table of contents, and commentators note that parody is not defined in the Act. So a meme is assessed like any other use, under the four fair use factors.

Views differ on how that comes out. Writing in the Law Gazette in June 2021, NUS law professor David Tan argued that memes are generally permissible transformative uses. A Bird & Bird partner quoted in Asia IP took a stricter view, that courts would want the parody to target the original work. No Singapore court has ruled on a meme.

For a brand the practical point is the commercial layer. A meme shared between friends is very different from the same image carrying your logo and a promo code. Adding branding moves the use towards the commercial end of factor one, and if the source is a film still or a photographer’s image, the owner licenses exactly that kind of use. Use meme formats you can recreate with your own images or licensed stock, or memes whose template is clearly offered for reuse, rather than lifting frames from films and TV.

The right to be credited

The 2021 Act introduced moral rights for creators of “authorial works”, including photographs, in Part 7. They are separate from copyright ownership, which is why they matter even when you have a licence.

• Right to be identified (s 371). For artistic works such as photos, identification is required when a visual image of the work is communicated to the public (s 372(3)), which covers posting on social media.
• How to credit (s 373). In the way the author has asked, where that is reasonable, otherwise by any reasonable form of identification, and it must be “clear and reasonably prominent”, meaning likely to be noticed by someone viewing the post.
• Right against false identification (s 378). Do not attribute a work to the wrong person, including your own team.
• Altered copies (s 380). Do not present an altered copy of an artistic work as unaltered.
• Consent and waiver (s 382). Consent can be given in writing or otherwise; a formal waiver must be in writing and signed by the author.
• Duration and transfer. The rights last as long as copyright in the work (s 370) and cannot be assigned (s 386).

IPOS’s own guidance makes the point for social media: credit is owed in a clear and reasonably prominent way, even where the person posting does not own the copyright. Exceptions exist where the author is unknown (s 374) and for certain permitted uses (s 376), such as incidental inclusion and fair use for reporting news.

Three practical consequences follow. First, a creator’s permission to repost is not a waiver of credit; keep the photographer’s handle in the caption, not buried in a comment. Second, if your creator contracts say you will not credit, get a written, signed waiver. Third, do not crop out a watermark or signature and present the image as your own. That risks both a copyright claim and a false-identification claim.

Screenshots, embeds and fonts: the untested areas

Some of the most common marketing practices have no Singapore authority behind them either way. We found no Singapore case or IPOS guidance on these, so treat the following as risk logic rather than settled law.

Screenshots of other people’s posts

A screenshot of a tweet or Instagram post copies whatever is in it: the text, any photo, and sometimes the profile picture. A short text review may carry little or no copyright, but an embedded photo does. Screenshots of customer praise also raise data-protection questions about identifiable people; our UGC guide covers consent. The safest approach is to ask the customer and credit them, or quote the words without the image.

Embedding and linking

Using a platform’s own embed function displays content from the original post rather than uploading a copy, and linking points people to it. Overseas courts have disagreed about whether embedding can infringe, and Singapore courts have not addressed it. Embedding through the platform’s tools remains far lower-risk than downloading and re-uploading, but it is not a guarantee.

Fonts

Font files are software, and most are distributed under licence agreements that set out where they may be used: desktop, web, app, broadcast or logos. Whatever the position on copyright in typeface designs, the licence is the document that will be enforced. Check that the font licence covers each channel before a campaign goes live, especially for web embedding and video.

AI-generated images

Section 244 permits copying a work for computational data analysis, defined in section 243, if conditions are met: the copy must not be used for any other purpose, and the user must have lawful access to the source, so no circumventing paywalls or breaching database terms. IPOS said in 2021 that this covers training machine learning.

That exception is about training. It says nothing about outputs. If an AI image tool produces something that reproduces a substantial part of a protected photograph, character or artwork, publishing that output is assessed as an ordinary copy. MinLaw and IPOS opened a public consultation on artificial intelligence and Singapore’s IP regime on 26 August 2026, closing on 22 October 2026. It asks whether the scope of the exception is sufficiently clear, how the law applies when AI output infringes, and how human contribution is understood and evidenced. It does not yet state a position on protection for AI outputs. Our guide to AI in content production covers workflow and disclosure; for copyright, avoid prompts that name living artists or brands, and review outputs for anything recognisable before publishing.

What happens when you get it wrong

A copyright owner can sue for infringement, and the Act gives courts a menu of remedies (s 305): an injunction, damages, an account of profits, statutory damages, and delivery up. Damages, an account of profits and statutory damages are alternatives; the owner picks one (s 305(2)).

• Innocent infringement (s 306). No damages if you did not know and could not reasonably have known the act infringed, but other remedies, including an account of profits, remain available. A brand that grabbed an image from a search engine will struggle to say it could not reasonably have known.
• Additional damages (s 307). Courts may add damages considering the flagrancy of the infringement and the benefit to the defendant.
• Statutory damages (s 308). Instead of proving loss, the owner can ask for up to $10,000 for each work, capped at $200,000 for all works (s 308(2)), unless actual loss above $200,000 is proved (s 308(3)). Factors include the commercial nature of the use, flagrancy, bad faith, the parties’ conduct and the need for deterrence (s 308(5)).
• Criminal offences. Wilfully infringing for commercial advantage (s 445), or wilfully infringing to a significant extent (s 449). IPOS lists penalties of up to $20,000 and/or six months’ jail for a first offence, and up to $50,000 and/or three years for a repeat offence. IPOS defines commercial advantage as a direct advantage, benefit or financial gain for a business or trade.

Platform takedowns

Part 6 of the Act protects online platforms that follow its conditions. A hosting platform that qualifies faces only non-monetary orders, such as removing content or terminating an account, rather than damages (s 315). For storage services, the conditions in section 318 include receiving no financial benefit directly attributable to the infringement, acting expeditiously to remove or disable access on knowledge or on a take-down notice, and designating a representative to receive notices. IPOS lists a $56 fee for the form designating that representative.

For brands, the incentive structure is what matters. Platforms are rewarded for acting quickly on notices, so a complaint about your post will usually lead to removal first and questions later. If your boosted post is removed mid-campaign, you lose the spend already committed and the engagement it built. Keep a licence record for every image you publish, so you can respond to a notice with evidence rather than an apology.

Worked examples

1. Reposting a blogger’s photo of your café

A food blogger posts a beautiful shot of your signature dish. You screenshot it and post it on your page with “Thanks for visiting!”. The blogger owns the copyright and has a right to be identified. Ask first, in the comments or by DM, and keep the yes; then repost using the platform’s share function where possible, with the blogger’s handle in the caption. If you want to use the photo in a paid ad or on your menu, that is a new use; agree a licence, ideally in writing with a fee or clear terms.

2. A film-still meme for a product launch

The designer proposes a famous film still with your product photoshopped in and a promo code below. It is commercial, it uses the whole frame of a creative work, and studios license stills. There is no parody exception to fall back on. Recreate the format with your own staff or licensed stock, keep the joke, and drop the still.

3. A news photo on a LinkedIn thought-leadership post

Your CEO writes about a major industry announcement and wants the press photo from a news site. News reporting needs sufficient acknowledgement, and a promotional LinkedIn post is a weak candidate for the news reporting purpose in any case. Link to the article, quote a line with attribution, and use your own image or a licensed one.

4. Stock photos used beyond their licence

Your team downloaded an image from a stock site for a blog post and later put it on a bus-stop poster and in paid social ads. Stock licences often distinguish editorial, web, print and advertising uses, and some limit print runs. Check the licence terms for each new channel. “We paid for it once” does not mean every use is covered.

5. An AI image that looks like a famous character

An AI tool generates a mascot that is unmistakably a well-known cartoon character in your brand colours. Section 244 does not help: it covers analysis for training, not publishing the result. If the output reproduces a substantial part of the character, publishing it is infringement in the ordinary way. Reject outputs like this, and do not prompt for named characters or artists.

Checklist for every image you publish

1. Know the source of every image: your own shoot, a commissioned creator, licensed stock, or a third party who gave permission.
2. Keep the licence or permission with the asset, including the channels it covers.
3. Credit clearly in the caption or on the image, in the form the creator asked for.
4. Treat ads as a new use. Permission to repost organically does not cover boosting, print or out-of-home.
5. Do not rely on fair use for promotional posts built around someone else’s whole image.
6. Avoid film and TV stills in branded memes; recreate formats instead.
7. Check font licences for web, app and video use.
8. Review AI outputs for recognisable characters, artworks or photos, and avoid named-artist prompts.
9. Respond to takedown notices quickly, with your licence record ready.

Conclusion

Singapore’s Copyright Act 2021 gave users a flexible fair use defence, but marketing is close to the hardest case for it: commercial purpose, whole works and a licensing market the use replaces. At the same time, creators gained an enforceable right to be credited, and owners can claim statutory damages of up to $10,000 per work without proving loss. The brands that stay out of trouble treat every image as an asset with a source, a licence and a credit, and they budget for licensing the way they budget for production.

If you would like help building a content programme on images you own, our content marketing team in Singapore can plan shoots, licensing and production, and you can see examples in our client case studies. For the full production picture, start with our guide to content creation in Singapore. For music, see our separate music licensing guide, and for getting more from images you do own, our guide to repurposing content.

Frequently asked questions

Can my business repost someone’s Instagram photo in Singapore?

Only with permission or a permitted use. The photographer owns the copyright and, under the Copyright Act 2021, has a right to be identified. Ask first, keep the permission, and credit them clearly and prominently in the caption.

Is using a meme in marketing fair use in Singapore?

It is untested. Singapore has no standalone parody exception, so memes are judged on the four fair use factors in section 191. Adding a logo or promo code makes the use more commercial, which weighs against fair use.

Do I have to credit photographers in Singapore?

Generally yes. Sections 371 to 373 give creators of photos and other authorial works a right to be identified in a clear and reasonably prominent way when the work is shared publicly, unless an exception applies or they have waived it in signed writing.

What are the damages for using a photo without permission?

A court can award damages or an account of profits, or statutory damages of up to $10,000 per work and $200,000 in total under section 308. Additional damages are possible for flagrant infringement, and wilful commercial infringement can be a crime.

Is commercial use automatically not fair use?

No. The Court of Appeal has said commerciality is not necessarily fatal. But commercial purpose is one of the four factors and weighs against the user, so promotional posts built around someone else’s image are a weak case for fair use.

Can I use AI-generated images in Singapore marketing?

Yes, but check the output. Section 244 allows copying for computational data analysis such as AI training, but does not cover publishing an output that reproduces a protected work. MinLaw and IPOS are consulting on AI and IP until 22 October 2026.