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 2, 2021

Thailand Strengthens Protection in the Digital Age with Latest Draft Amendment of the Copyright Act

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Thailand’s latest draft amendment of the Copyright Act was approved by the cabinet in late 2020 and is currently being reviewed by the parliament. Although the draft is still in the legislative process, copyright owners, legal practitioners, and most importantly, internet service providers (ISPs) should be aware of some major revisions reflected in the draft in order to prepare properly prior to the actual implementation of the law, which is very likely to be within 2021.

The draft of the new law—if enacted without major additional changes—would both adjust protection terms of some copyright works and introduce a robust regime for online copyright protection. Some of the major updates in the draft are highlighted below.

Extending the Term of Protection for Photographic Works

The draft extends the term of protection for photographic works, which under the current law is 50 years after a work’s creation or first publication, to be the lifetime of the author plus 50 years after the death of the author. This lengthening of the term would put Thailand’s protection for photographic works in line with the WIPO Copyright Treaty, which aims to enhance protection of copyright works in the digital age.

ISP Safe Harbors and Notice-and-Takedown System

Section 32/3 of the current Copyright Act provides injunctive relief against online infringement for copyright owners, together with an exemption from infringement liability for ISPs. The measure introduced by this section has proved ineffective since its implementation in 2015. The new draft therefore removes this measure and includes a new section on safe harbor for the ISPs so that they are not held liable for copyright infringement committed by their users, as long as they comply with the new measures, including implementation of the notice-and-takedown system.

In laying out these new measures, the draft redefines both “service providers” and “users” to fit the new rules. It provides an extensive definition of “service providers” and divides ISPs into four types: intermediary ISPs, caching ISPs, hosting ISPs, and search engine ISPs. In addition, its definition for “users” of ISPs includes anyone who uses an ISP’s service, whether or not payment is required. Anyone who falls under one of these definitions must be aware of their rights, responsibilities and possible liabilities.

The draft also holds that in order for ISPs to be exempted from liability for copyright infringement for their provided services, they must have explicitly announced their policies to terminate services to users found to be repeated infringers, and must have maintained compliance with these policies.

In addition to these general conditions, there are specific requirements that each ISP must meet in order to be exempted from liability. Importantly, this draft adopts the notice-and-takedown system, which is comparable to the U.S.’s Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Under this system, copyright owners who have sufficient evidence of infringement can send a notice of infringement to hosting or search engine ISPs informing them of any allegedly infringing data. An ISP that has been notified is required to take down the allegedly infringing data, its references, and access points from their system—or block access—without delay. The ISP is required to subsequently notify the alleged infringing user who posted the material to give him or her an opportunity to oppose the removal. If the user responds with a counter-notice, the ISP must notify the copyright owner and confirm with the copyright owner whether to bring the relevant data back onto the system or maintain the takedown.

These general guidelines on the notice-and-takedown process will be clarified further in additional regulations on the exact criteria, rules, and conditions for the notice and counter-notice procedures. However, ISPs can rest assured that if they comply with these steps, they will be exempt from liability—that is, they will fall into the safe harbor.

The draft also prescribes that any person who falsely files a notice or falsely files a counter-notice is liable for any damages arising from this action.

Infringement of Technological Protection Measures

The draft broadens the definition of technological protection measures (TPMs) and enumerates TPM violations. In addition, it prohibits providing services to circumvent TPMs and imposes liability against anyone who manufactures, sells, or distributes products, equipment, or services intended to circumvent TPMs. Moreover, the draft narrows the scope of exceptions for each violation. Under the current Copyright Act, the exception to liability arising from TPM circumvention only refers to the exceptions for copyright infringement—an approach viewed as too broad and not always applicable to cases of TPM circumvention. The new draft Copyright Act thus narrows the scope of exception by specifying that the exact exceptions will be enumerated in forthcoming ministerial regulations.

What It Means for Copyright Owners and ISPs

The draft amendment to the Copyright Act will equip copyright owners with broader and more up-to-date tools to tackle online copyright infringement in the new digital landscape, where much infringement of copyright has moved into the online space. ISPs will be able to rely on the safe harbor mechanism for an exemption from liability for copyright infringement, by way of their adherence to certain compliance duties. Therefore, it is important that they—as well as copyright owners and other relevant stakeholders—keep a close eye on the new developments that may arise. By doing so, these parties will together be able to prevent online copyright infringement in Thailand and lower their risk of liability.

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