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 14, 2022

The 2022 Amendment of Thailand’s Copyright Act: The Good, the Bad, and the Backstory

Subscribe to Updates

The copyright law currently in effect in Thailand is the Copyright Act B.E. 2537 (1994), which came into force in March 1995. After 20 years, a new amendment came into effect in August 2015, with a focus on updating the law for the digital age, followed by a further amendment that became effective in March 2019 to comply with the Marrakesh Treaty providing exemptions to copyright infringement for people with disabilities.

Recently, to comply with the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty (WCT) and update practices in combating online infringement, the Thai Copyright Act has been amended once again. This article will explore the backstory behind this amendment, highlight the law’s successes and potential areas of concern, and explain what copyright owners, practitioners, and—most importantly—internet service providers (ISPs) should be aware of in order to comply with this law, which was published in the Government Gazette on February 24, 2022, and will become effective on August 23, 2022.

The Backstory

Despite the modernizing focus of the 2015 amendment, in recent years Thailand recognized the necessity of strengthening copyright protection and modernizing the law further to cope with online infringement problems fueled by today’s rapid technological change. Previously, the Copyright Act B.E. 2537 (1994), as amended in 2015, provided a specific mechanism to solve online copyright infringement. This mechanism, which appeared in Section 32/3 of the law, differed from the clearly defined notice-and-takedown system favored in several other countries by relying on the courts to resolve copyright infringement matters in relation to the provision on ISP liability and safe harbors. As the law did not include adequate notification procedures or rapid dispute resolution mechanisms, the implementation of Section 32/3 became impractical.

In addition, the definition of an ISP was broad, so “mere conduit” (or intermediary) ISPs would often receive court orders to remove infringing content, even though, technically, most of them were not capable of doing so. As such, the limitation of liabilities or provision of “safe harbors” for ISPs under Section 32/3 was not practically feasible. The Department of Intellectual Property thus initiated amendments to this law, with the goal of enhancing copyright protection in accordance with the WCT, clarifying ISPs’ safe harbors, adopting a notice-and-takedown system, and revising provisions on technological protection measures

Summary of the 2022 Amendments

Two notable changes introduced by the amended act are simple: an extension of the term of protection for photographic works to be the author’s lifetime plus an additional 50 years after the author’s death (an increase from the previous term of 50 years from the work’s creation), and a provision allowing members of the Copyright Committee to stay on the committee past the end of their term if new members have not yet been appointed to replace them.

However, a few other significant developments in the law are considerably more detailed. These are described below.

ISP Safe Harbors

The amended act classifies ISPs into four types:

  • Intermediary ISPs,
  • Caching ISPs,
  • Hosting ISPs, and
  • Search engine ISPs.

In addition, the amended act clarifies that “users” of ISPs are legally defined as such regardless of whether payment is required.

With these definitions established, the amended Copyright Act replaces the problematic Section 32/3 (described above) with a new section titled “Exemption of Liability of ISPs.” This newly drafted section sets out both general and specific requirements for ISPs to be exempted from liability for copyright infringement:

  • General requirements: ISPs must have explicitly announced and complied with their policies to terminate service to users who are repeat infringers. This requirement applies to all types of ISPs as a general rule.
  • Specific requirements: Each ISP must also comply with specific requirements based on its services and technical activities. Under the amended act, the obligation to remove data or block access is only for caching ISPs, hosting ISPs, and search engine ISPs. This clarifies that intermediary ISPs are not required to remove data from or block access to their systems. It is also clear that only hosting ISPs and search engine ISPs are required to provide channels for copyright owners to report infringing content.

Notice-and-Takedown System

The steps in the amended act’s notice-and-takedown procedure are as follows.

  • Under the amended act, copyright owners can send a notice of infringement to inform hosting ISPs or search engine ISPs of allegedly infringing data.
  • An ISP that has been notified must take down the data, its references, and any access points from their system, or block access, without delay. The ISP must subsequently notify the user who posted the allegedly infringing material to allow the user to oppose the removal by sending a counternotice to the ISP.
  • If such a counternotice is received, the ISP then has to forward a copy of the counternotice to the copyright owner and notify the copyright owner that it will bring back the removed content or cease blocking the access within 30 days of receiving the counternotice.
  • After the 30-day period ends, unless the copyright owner files a lawsuit against the alleged infringer/user, the ISP is required to restore the data or cease blocking access to it within 15 days.

To prevent ill-intentioned filings, the amended act prescribes that anyone who files a false notice (such as one from someone other than the copyright owner) or false counternotice is liable for any damages arising from that action.

Technological Protection Measures

The amended act revises the definition of technological protection measures (TPMs), broadening the scope to refer to technology designed to protect the rights of a copyright owner or a performer (rights control), and technology designed to effectively control access to a copyrighted work or to a recording of a performance (access control). Therefore, the new definition covers both rights-control and access-control TPMs.

In addition, the amended act revises the provision on TPM violations, defining any act rendering access-control TPMs ineffective as infringement of TPMs, and deleting the requirement of intention to infringe. As for the circumvention of rights-control TPMs, since it leads to actual copyright infringement activities, the circumvention is subject to higher penalties. The amended act further prohibits providing services to circumvent TPMs and imposes liability against anyone who manufactures, sells, distributes, or advertises products or devices intended to circumvent TPMs.

The exceptions for TPM violations in the previous Copyright Act were considered too broad. The amended act addresses this by removing its stipulation of exceptions, instead specifying that the exceptions will be laid out in ministerial regulations to be issued later.

The Good and the Bad

Thailand’s amended Copyright Act contains several positive developments and benefits. First, it increases the length of protection for photographic works to be in line with international standards. Second, the changes to TPM provisions will strengthen enforcement options. Third, the amended act provides mechanisms for hosting ISPs and search engine ISPs to provide easy and accessible channels for reporting infringing content. This should make it easier for copyright owners to report alleged infringing content, and it may also create greater incentives to report such content and thus provide copyright owners and users with greater protection against online infringers. Also, as long as ISPs properly comply with the new procedures, they will be within safe-harbor boundaries that exempt them from liability for the alleged copyright infringement.

However, as this notice-and-takedown system follows the one provided by the United States’ Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which has been in place since 1998, it may not be the most effective measure to cope with current trends in online infringement, particularly with the emergence of different types of social media platforms, online marketplaces for new types of digital content (such as NFTs) and possibly more complex metaverse platforms in the near future.

In addition, the amended act requires that before notifying an ISP of infringing content, copyright owners must take into consideration the allowable exceptions. This means that copyright owners must consider whether the alleged infringing content actually conflicts with the normal exploitation of a copyrighted work by the copyright owner and unreasonably prejudices the legitimate interests of the copyright owner, or whether it possibly falls within the scope of exceptions. It is unclear how copyright owners are to prove the fulfillment of this requirement.

We believe that the amended Copyright Act will equip copyright owners with broader and more advanced tools to tackle copyright infringement as it occurs today. The safe harbor provisions will be greatly beneficial to ISPs whose systems comply with the law. Skepticism remains, however, over how well the system will work in practice and whether these provisions will encourage ISPs to establish internal policies and systems in order to be exempted from liability. Therefore, it will be important for copyright owners to keep a close eye on developments once the amended law comes into effect.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 28, 2026
When considering a franchise, many people first think of a restaurant, retail chain, or service outlet. From a legal perspective, however, the foundation of every franchise lies in the right to use a brand, which is typically granted through a trademark license. Trademarks are often the most valuable assets in a franchise system. Through a trademark license, a franchisor authorizes a franchisee to use its trademarks, logos, and branding while maintaining control over how the brand is presented to customers. The Role of Trademarks in Franchise Businesses Under the Trademark Law 2019, a mark is defined as a sign that is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of others in the course of trade. This distinguishing function is particularly important in a franchise arrangement, where the franchisee’s use of the franchisor’s trademark allows consumers to recognize the source, quality, and reputation of the business. In this way, trademarks help preserve brand identity, strengthen market recognition, and protect the commercial value of the franchise system. Legal Foundation for Franchise Brand Protection Myanmar presently does not have a specific statutory framework governing franchise arrangements. As a result, franchise agreements are generally regulated under the broader applicable legal framework, including the Contract Act 1872, the Trademark Law 2019, the Competition Law 2015, the Consumer Protection Law 2019, and the relevant implementing rules and regulations. The licensing of trademarks within a franchise arrangement is particularly governed by the Trademark Law 2019. Franchisors should ensure that the trademarks intended to be licensed to franchisees in Myanmar are registered under the Trademark Law 2019 and that the relevant trademark license is properly recorded with the Intellectual Property Department (IPD). Trademark License Recordal Under the Trademark Law 2019, the owner of a registered trademark may grant a license to another
Read More
August 27, 2026
It is generally understood that patents are granted for new designs that have not been widely known or used in Thailand and not been disclosed anywhere prior to the date of the patent application. It is trite law that design law protects the distinctive appearance or products. Under Section 3 of the Thai Patent Act B.E. 2522, as amended by the Patent Act (No. 2) B.E. 2535 and the Patent Act (No. 3) B.E. 2542, a design is defined as “any form or composition of lines or colors that gives a product a special appearance and can serve as a pattern for an industrial or handicraft product.” This raises an important question. Can a patent be issued for a product design that contains text, numerals, trademarks, or symbols that do not fall under the definition of a design? This issue commonly arises when attempting to register packaging, labels, and graphical user interfaces (GUIs). Until a few years ago, applicants could file design applications with the Thai Patent Office for designs that contained such elements, provided that an appropriate disclaimer was included. This practice was generally accepted by Thai design examiners at that time, but the Patent Office has since implemented a change in its practice that could have a significant impact on applicants for design patents. Where design representations are submitted as line drawings or computer-aided design (CAD) drawings, the examiner may now issue an office action requiring their removal. This practice, however, appears to be applied inconsistently, as some examiners still exercise their own discretion in determining whether drawings containing these elements are acceptable. Below are examples of a GUI design, a CAD drawing design, and a photographic design representation that illustrates issues relating to the presence of nonallowable elements. GUI design For this GUI design, the submitted
Read More
August 27, 2026
Franchising in Thailand has matured into a sizeable commercial sector, but the rules governing franchisor–franchisee relationships remain scattered across general legislation rather than consolidated in a dedicated franchise statute. In this environment, the decisions of the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) have emerged as valuable practical guidance. Thailand follows a civil-law system in which judicial and administrative decisions do not create binding precedent; however, past rulings are nonetheless influential. This article examines the most instructive recent TCCT decisions and distills the practical compliance considerations for franchisors and franchisees operating in Thailand. Postcontract Changes: Justified or Unfair? A recurring issue is whether a franchisor may alter the terms of engagement after contract execution. The TCCT has established that midterm modifications are not inherently unfair; the determinative factors are whether there was a reasonable business justification, adequate advance notice, and a transparent process. In a 2023 coffee franchise matter, for instance, the TCCT declined to find a violation where a franchisor increased raw material prices, noting the increase had been communicated in advance and supported by demonstrable cost pressures. A bubble tea franchise matter reinforces this principle. The TCCT found that postcontract mandatory purchases of branded syrup and flavorings were justified, as the agreement reserved the franchisor’s right to modify product requirements, the materials were sold at or below market prices, and the branded ingredients possessed distinctive qualities deemed essential to franchise quality. The complaint was dismissed, with the additional requirements characterized as a legitimate measure to preserve brand consistency. Considered together, these decisions indicate that post‑contract modifications will be evaluated against three criteria: (1) whether there is a legitimate business rationale, (2) whether adequate advance notice was provided, and (3) whether franchisees were treated equitably throughout the transition. Discriminatory Treatment: Are Renewals and Information Equal? A 2024 automotive dealership
Read More
August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More