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

April 30, 2015

Ten Key Changes to Thailand’s Copyright Act

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

Over the past 20 years since its enactment, the Thai Copyright Act B.E. 2537 (A.D. 1994) has remained unchanged, despite numerous attempts by legislators to modernize the law. As a result, Thailand’s copyright law is out of date, and legal measures to combat piracy are inadequate.

In late 2014, however, the National Legislative Assembly passed two copyright bills into law. They were published in the Royal Gazette  on February 5, 2015, and will take effect 180 days after publication.

In this article, we will examine ten major amendments that will be introduced to Thailand’s copyright law.

1. Unauthorized Camcording in Cinemas. Unauthorized recording of movies in cinemas, even for personal use, is explicitly prohibited under Section 28/1. Violators of this provision may be subject to the penalties listed in Section 69/1, which include imprisonment for six months to four years, or a fine ranging from THB 100,000 to THB 800,000, or both.

2. Disabled Persons Exception. Under Section 32 (9), reproduction or adaptation of copyright works for the benefit of disabled persons is not considered copyright infringement, provided it is for nonprofit purposes.

3. First-Sale Doctrine Exception. A form of the first-sale doctrine is found in Section 32/1, which states that lawful distribution of an original copyright work or its copies by a person who has lawfully obtained the ownership of such work or copies is exempt from copyright infringement.

4. Temporary Reproduction Exception. Under Section 32/2, reproduction of copyright works in a computer system, which is necessary for the system to operate normally (as computers make temporary copies of data in the memory), does not amount to copyright infringement.

5. Preliminary Injunctions against Infringement of Copyright in Computer Systems. Section 32/3 allows copyright owners to seek preliminary injunctive relief against the unauthorized distribution of copyright works in computer systems. If a copyright owner has evidence to believe that copyright infringement is taking place in the computer system of a service provider, he or she may file a motion in the court for an order against the service provider to stop such infringement.

6. Rights Management Information. The protection of Rights Management Information (RMI) is provided for in Sections 53/1 and 53/2. The manipulation of RMI amounts to infringement of RMI, provided that the manipulator is aware that his or her actions could infringe a copyright or performers’ rights. RMI infringement also occurs where the act of importing into Thailand for sale or making available to the public any copyright-protected work is done with the knowledge that the RMI of such work has been removed or altered.

There are, however, exceptions listed in Section 53/3. For example, any deletion or change made to RMI by an authorized official or educational institution is permitted.

7. Technological Protection Measures. Under Section 53/4, circumventing Technological Protection Measures or offering such service is prohibited if a person is aware that such act could constitute infringement of a copyright or performers’ rights. Criminal liability is imposed on a person who commits such act, according to Section 70/1. Specific exceptions where circumvention is allowed are also provided for under Section 53/5, for example, circumvention for the purpose of testing security problems of computer systems.

8. Performers’ Moral Rights. The new Copyright Act recognizes that performers also have moral rights in addition to the economic rights provided by law. According to Section 51/1, a performer has the right to identify himself or herself as the performer of his or her performances and to prevent his or her assignee or any other person from any modification of his or her performances that would be prejudicial to his or her reputation or dignity.

9. Punitive Damages. Punitive damages are introduced under Section 64, paragraph two. If there is clear evidence that copyright infringement or infringement of a performer’s right is committed intentionally so that the copyright work or a performer’s right can be widely accessed by the public, the court may award higher levels of damages but may not exceed double the amount.

10. Seizure and Destruction of Counterfeit Goods. Section 75 has been amended to allow the court to order that infringing materials be destroyed at the expense of the infringer. Previously, an owner of a copyright or performer’s right had to take possession of infringing materials.

Thailand has taken a step in the right direction to tackle copyright infringement more effectively, particularly in today’s digital era. But several provisions in the new law are vague, which may lead to disputes over their proper interpretation and practice. For this reason, intellectual property owners should closely examine the new copyright law to broaden their understanding and protect themselves to fullest extent.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
Read More
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
Read More
June 30, 2026
Customs recordation is an enforcement mechanism in Myanmar that enables intellectual property (IP) rights holders to seek prevention of the cross-border movement of infringing goods. The enactment of Myanmar’s IP laws in 2019 has enabled customs recordation for registered marks and copyrights under the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019. By contrast, the Patent Law 2019 and the Industrial Design Law 2019 do not provide a practical framework for customs recordation, and accordingly such rights are not subject to the customs recordation regime. Under the Trademark Law 2019, rights holders may apply for customs recordation and may also ask the Customs Department to suspend the release of goods suspected of bearing counterfeit marks. Likewise, the Copyright Law 2019 allows for customs intervention in relation to pirated works. These provisions reflect Myanmar’s gradual alignment with international standards on border measures, although the implementation framework remains at a relatively early stage of development. Customs Recordation Pursuant to the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019, the relevant authorities have issued customs rules concerning the protection of registered marks and copyrights. In practice, the process generally begins with the submission of an application to the Customs Department together with supporting documentation. This typically includes proof of registration in Myanmar; details of the rights holder, applicant, and any authorized representative; and a comprehensive description of the genuine goods. Product identification materials—such as photographs, packaging samples, and distinguishing features—are particularly important in helping customs officers identify suspected infringing goods. A recordation remains valid for two years from the date of approval. It may be renewed for additional two-year terms, provided that the renewal application is filed within the thirty days prior to expiry for marks and up to thirty days in advance of the expiry date for copyrights, in accordance with
Read More
June 24, 2026
Patent enablement requirements are provided under Article 102 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). In particular, a patent specification must “fully and clearly disclose the nature of the invention to such an extent that, based on the specification, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement the invention.” In pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents, this requirement is more complicated and subject to more rigorous assessment. The Patent Examination Guidelines (Guidelines) of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) were amended in March 2026 to introduce Annexes III and IV for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, in which Annex III provides detailed guidelines on the assessment of specification requirements. These amendments were made under a project for strengthening capacity in industrial property examination between the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the IP Office. Annex III provides detailed instructions on how examiners assess enablement in a pharmaceutical or biotechnology application, and offers examples of acceptable and unacceptable descriptions with regard to the enablement aspect. Enablement Requirements in Pharma and Biotech Patents Article 12.7 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10) adds to the requirements of Article 102 of the IP Law that the description must demonstrate the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of the technical solution. For pharmaceutical composition subject matters, Article 12.9 of Circular 10 sets out that the description must present the results of clinical trials and/or the pharmacological effects of the claimed pharmaceutical composition, and must include at least the following information: Substance/mixture used. Testing method (system) employed. Information on the test results. Correlation between the pharmacological effects obtained from the tests and the application of the pharmaceutical product in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. The Guidelines note that pharmacological study results should be presented in a quantified manner, and pharmacological
Read More