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

March 9, 2015

Thai Copyright Act Amendments: Updating the Law for the Digital Age

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Thailand’s Copyright Act B.E. 2537 (1994) came into force on March 21, 1995. Over the course of the nearly 20 years since its passing, the Act had previously remained unchanged, devoid of any amendments, despite numerous attempts by legislators to strengthen copyright protection and modernize the law to keep up with technological changes.

One of the copyright bills recently introduced by the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) of Thailand contains broader and more advanced tools for copyright owners to tackle copyright infringement. This copyright bill proposes reforms on copyright protection and liability in relation to the protection of Rights Management Information (RMI) and Technological Protection Measures (TPM).

The NLA has now passed this bill into law, having published it in the Royal Gazette on February 5, 2015. The bill will come into force 180 days after publication. With this significant development in mind, law enforcers, legal practitioners, and copyright owners need to become familiar with what the new copyright law has in store. This article will examine the protection of RMI and TPM introduced by this copyright bill.

Copyright Infringement Exception under the First-Sale Doctrine

Section 32/1 of the amended Copyright Act explicitly recognizes the exception of copyright infringement under the first-sale doctrine. This new section stipulates that any distribution of original or copied copyrighted work—the ownership of which is lawfully acquired—does not amount to copyright infringement. This exception applies to all copyrighted works that are recognized by the Thai Copyright Act.

Exception for Temporary Reproduction in Computer Systems

With the understanding that copyrighted works sometimes need to be duplicated in order to allow a computer system to function, the amended Copyright Act provides an exception to reflect this need, similar to exceptions contained in the copyright laws of many countries. Section 32/2 stipulates that any duplication of a copyrighted work that is required to be made in order to allow a computer system to function normally shall not be deemed as an act of copyright infringement.

Preliminary Injunctive Relief for Copyright Infringement on Computer Systems

Section 32/3 of the amended Copyright Act will introduce a new injunctive measure which copyright owners can use to prevent the distribution of copyright-infringing content on the computer systems of Internet service providers. Under this section, in the event that a copyright owner has reasonable grounds to believe that a copyrighted work has been the subject of infringement on a computer system, he or she can file a motion with the competent court to request a court order be made against the service provider to stop the infringement. A “service provider,” as defined in the Act, includes any person who provides access to the Internet or any services that allow people to communicate with one another over a computer system and any person who provides computer information storage services.

When granting such an injunction, the court will specify the period of time within which the service provider must comply with the court order. After the injunction is granted, the copyright owner is obliged to initiate a lawsuit against the infringer within the period of time ordered by the court for the service provider to take down the infringing content. If the service provider is not the person who controls, initiates, or orders the infringing act to be carried out in the computer system, he or she will be exempt from liability for copyright infringement upon compliance with the court order, and he or she cannot be held liable for any damage incurred by his or her action carried out under the order.

Protection of Performer’s Moral Rights

The amended Copyright Act protects the moral rights of performers, similar to those of creators of copyrighted works, under Section 18. Under the new Section 51/1, a performer is entitled to identify himself or herself as a performer in the performance and has the right to protect his or her reputation by prohibiting any person, including the assignee of the performer’s rights, to distort, shorten, adapt, or perform any other act with respect to the performance to the extent that such act would cause damage to the reputation or dignity of the performer.

Protection of Rights Management Information

Sections 53/1 and 53/2 of the amended Act stipulate the civil liability of a person who deletes or modifies RMI with the knowledge that such deletion or modification would induce, cause, facilitate, or conceal copyright or infringement of a performer’s right, as well as a person who communicates to the public or imports into Thailand for distribution any copyrighted work with the knowledge that the RMI of such work has been deleted or modified.

The liability for RMI infringement is not stipulated without exceptions. Under Section 53/3, exceptions are provided for cases in which:

  1. the deletion or modification was made by an authorized official in order to enforce the law or to safeguard national security;
  2. the deletion or modification was made by an educational institution, library, or public broadcasting agency for nonprofit purposes; or
  3. 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 nonprofit purposes.

Protection of Technological Protection Measures

Circumvention of TPM is prohibited under Section 53/4 of the amended Act—a person who circumvents TPM or provides the service of circumvention can be held liable for infringement if the circumvention was performed with the knowledge that such circumvention would induce or cause infringement on a copyrighted work or a performer’s rights. Similar to infringement of RMI, any person who circumvents TPM may be fined and imprisoned in accordance with the penalties specified in Section 70/1.

The exceptions to liability arising out of TPM circumvention are included in Section 53/5, under which the act of a person who circumvents TPM shall not be deemed to be an infringing act under Section 53/4 if such circumvention was:

  1. necessary, provided that it falls within the exceptions to copyright infringement under the law;
  2. to analyze the components required to cause one computer program to work with another;
  3. to conduct research and analysis and identify  defects of encryption technology;
  4. to test, examine, or repair security systems of a computer, computer system, or computer network;
  5. to stop the function of TPM which relates to the collection and dissemination of data that indicates the online activities of an individual;
  6. to enforce the law and safeguard national security, which must be made by an authorized official; or
  7. to gain access to copyrighted work, which must be made by an educational institution, library, or public broadcasting agency and made for nonprofit purposes.

Punitive Damages

The amended Copyright Act broadens the scope of civil remedies available for copyright infringement by applying the concept of punitive damages. Section 64 of the Act, an existing section, has been amended to include a second paragraph which allows a competent court to double the amount of damages determined under the criteria set out in the first paragraph of the same section in the event that there is clear evidence that the copyright or performer’s right was infringed on with the intention to allow the work to be widely accessible by the public.

Seizure and Destruction of Counterfeit Goods

The provision on the seizure and destruction of counterfeit goods under the Copyright Act has been changed significantly. Under the new Section 75, copyright owners are no longer entitled to ownership of the infringing articles. Rather, Section 75 grants the competent court the authority to order the infringing articles to be confiscated or destroyed, with the infringer bearing the cost of the destruction.

The amendments to the Copyright Act will equip copyright owners with broader and more advanced tools to tackle copyright infringement in the new digital age. An air of skepticism remains, however, over how well the new measures will be applied in practice. Therefore, it is important for copyright owners to keep a close eye on any new developments that may arise.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More