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

July 24, 2015

Rights Management Information Protection in Thailand

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

The Internet has made access to a plethora of content readily available across the world. Search engines, such as Google, Bing, Yahoo, and AOL, have made it even easier to find content. As access increases, however, the risk of such content being duplicated or altered also rises.

Copyright holders should therefore protect their content by attaching information, such as signatures, watermarks, International Standard Book Numbers (ISBN), and so on, to their work. This allows users to identify the owners of works, and in turn, allows owners to potentially benefit from licensing arrangements.

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has set out two key documents—the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT)—defining this information as rights management information (RMI). RMI is the basis for new licensing systems, and can certify the integrity and authenticity of works and phonograms (recordings of sounds). Combined with other technology, RMI has also proved to be a powerful tool against copyright infringement.

RMI refers to information that identifies a work, its author, a performer and his or her performance, a phonogram, its performer, an owner of any right in a work, or information about the terms and conditions of use of a work, and any numbers or codes that represent such information. This information must be attached to a copy of a work or appear in connection with the communication of a work to the public.

As with technological protection measures in general, RMI needs to be safeguarded. Legal protection is needed to prevent the deliberate manipulation and distortion of RMI and its subsequent distribution.

Under the WIPO treaties, contracting parties are obligated to provide adequate and effective legal remedies against any person knowingly removing or altering any electronic RMI without authority or distributing, importing for distribution, broadcasting, communicating, or making available to the public, without authority, performances, copies of fixed performances, phonograms, works or copies of works knowing that electronic RMI has been removed or altered without authority.

Violations occur when a party knows, or has reasonable grounds to know, that its action will enable or conceal an infringement of any right covered by the treaties or the Berne Convention.

Many countries have amended their laws to protect RMI, including Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, and the United States. The laws of each country, however, differ slightly from one another. For example, Japan has focused on protecting electronic RMI as opposed to analogue RMI. Malaysia’s law is closely aligned to the provisions of the WIPO treaties.

Thailand, which has implemented RMI protection in its latest Copyright Act amendments, has also aligned its law with WIPO, but with an important exception.

The National Legislative Assembly recently passed two copyright bills into law. The bill that implements RMI protection will come into force on August 4, 2015—180 days after it was published in the Royal Gazette.

Similar to WIPO, Sections 53/1 and 53/2 of the amended Copyright Act stipulate civil liability for a person who deletes or modifies RMI attached to a copyrighted work without authorization from the rights owner and with the knowledge that such deletion or modification would induce, cause, facilitate, or conceal copyright or infringement of a performer’s right.

The amended Act also provides for civil liability for a person who communicates to the public or imports into Thailand for distribution any copyrighted work with the knowledge that its RMI has been deleted or modified.

In contrast to WIPO, under Section 53/3, exceptions to RMI infringement are provided for cases in which:

  • the deletion or modification was made by an authorized official in order to enforce the law or safeguard national security;
  • the deletion or modification was made by an educational institution, library, or public broadcasting agency for non-profit purposes; or
  • the communication to the public of copyrighted work, in which RMI has been deleted or modified, was carried out by an educational institution, library, or public broadcasting agency for non-profit purposes.

Copyright holders should label their content to allow users to identify their work and any conditions of use. This also instills confidence in consumers that the work is authentic.

Illegally altering or removing RMI can lead to unpermitted use and misidentification of the correct rights owner, which can create a negative impact on our economy. Fortunately, RMI protection has finally been introduced into Thai law to deal with RMI infringement.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 28, 2026
Data protection officers (DPOs) have become a fixture of Thailand’s privacy compliance landscape since the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) took full effect and the Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) began requiring certain organizations to appoint them. On July 7, 2026, the Office of the PDPC presented draft guidance on DPOs as part of a public consultation on a series of draft personal data protection manuals and recommendations. The draft offers the clearest indication yet of how the regulator expects the DPO role to work in practice, addressing recurring implementation issues under the PDPA—including when an organization must appoint a DPO, how the DPO should operate independently, how to manage conflicts of interest, and how data subjects and regulators should be able to contact the DPO. Because it remains in draft, organizations have an opportunity to weigh the practical implications now before the guidance is finalized. When a DPO Must Be Appointed The draft guidance clarifies the triggers for mandatory DPO appointment, including: Regular and systematic monitoring of personal data or systems on a large scale, such as tracking, analyzing, or predicting behavior, attitudes, or individual characteristics. Core activities involving large-scale processing of sensitive personal data, such as health data, biometric data, or criminal records. Certain foreign-organization representative arrangements. Public-sector coverage under relevant notifications identifying government entities that must appoint a DPO. Processing involving 100,000 or more data subjects may be considered large-scale. The guidance also contemplates voluntary DPO appointment for organizations that wish to raise their privacy governance standards, and such organizations should still comply with the standards applicable to DPOs under the law. Independence and Reporting Lines The draft guidance identifies lack of DPO independence as a core risk because an ineffective or constrained DPO may be unable to raise deficiencies
Read More
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More
July 27, 2026
A new decree on penalties for violations related to the crypto asset market creates compliance risks for offshore crypto asset exchanges in Vietnam that do not hold, and practically cannot obtain, a Vietnamese license, and for Vietnamese users who continue to transact on those platforms. Decree No. 284/2026/ND-CP (Decree 284), issued by the government of Vietnam on July 16, 2026, formally establishes an administrative penalty framework for violations related to crypto assets and the crypto asset market. The decree takes effect on September 1, 2026, and will remain in force for the duration of the five-year pilot program under Resolution No. 05/2025/NQ-CP, which is scheduled to end in September 2030. Direct Penalties on Vietnamese Users The most immediate commercial risk to offshore platforms is that their Vietnamese users now face direct personal liability for using their exchanges. Vietnamese users who trade crypto assets outside of a Ministry of Finance-licensed service provider face fines of up to VND 50 million (approximately USD 1,900). Vietnamese users trading in crypto assets that are offered or issued to foreign users face higher penalties of up to VND 100 million (approximately USD 3,800). It is expected that Vietnamese users will be more willing to migrate away from offshore platforms now that there is a risk of real enforcement against them. Penalties on Unlicensed Service Providers Violations of providing crypto asset services or advertising crypto-related services without a license face fines of up to VND 200 million (approximately USD 7,700). Operating a crypto asset trading market without proper authorization falls within the same highest penalty bands. Organizations that violate issuance, provision, or disclosure rules may face fines of up to VND 200 million. Although the maximum administrative fine per violation is capped at VND 200 million for organizations and VND 100 million for individuals, these
Read More
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
Read More