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​ 

September 24, 2026
Vietnam is implementing and developing a broad package of regulatory reforms that could reshape how IP, data, digital platforms, and product authenticity are regulated and enforced. Several of the key measures have been led by the Ministry of Public Security in its legislative and administrative capacity, as part of a broader government effort. The core reform package consists of four key legal instruments: proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, a proposed new Data Security Law, a draft Decree on Product Identification, Authentication and Traceability, and the newly enacted Decree No. 330/2026/ND-CP. These instruments include rules on criminal enforcement, data security, electronic identification, product identification and traceability, administrative violations, and cybersecurity sanctions. Combined, these measures will affect copyright enforcement, industrial property rights, trade secrets, AI training data, product provenance, online takedowns, valuation of counterfeit goods and electronic evidence. It is worth noting that, in addition to strengthening criminal penalties for IP crimes, Vietnam’s emerging regulatory framework increasingly treats infringement, data misuse, product authentication, and platform-enabled violations as interconnected regulatory and enforcement challenges. For rights holders and foreign investors, this could mean stronger tools against counterfeiting and online infringement, but also more compliance obligations around data, traceability, AI, platform controls and government-facing reporting. Expansion of Criminal IP Enforcement Proposed amendments to Article 225 of the Criminal Code would expand criminal copyright exposure beyond reproduction and distribution to cover large-scale commercial public performance and online communication of works, phonograms and video recordings. This is important because piracy is increasingly about streaming, unauthorized communication, and platform access models rather than physical copying. Aggravated copyright infringement could be subject to up to 10 years in prison for individuals and fines of up to VND 6 billion (about USD 228,300) for commercial legal entities. The amended Article 226 would expand criminal industrial property liability beyond
Read More
September 21, 2026
Thailand’s first-to-file trademark system has a serious vulnerability: it lacks both an explicit mechanism for refusing bad-faith registrations and any means of invalidating them in court after the five-year limitation period has expired. While brand owners worldwide confront trademark squatting, Thailand’s statutory silence stands out, particularly in light of AIPPI’s 2017 Resolution Q249, which recommended that every jurisdiction provide clear tools to address bad faith at all stages of the trademark lifecycle. Nearly a decade later, Thailand has yet to act. This article proposes a concrete reform blueprint, drawing on the legislative models of China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The Statutory Gap Under the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534, no provision expressly authorizes examiners to reject an application on grounds of bad faith. Section 8(10) addresses well-known marks but offers no relief where the targeted mark lacks well-known status. Practitioners have resorted to Section 8(9)—which bars marks “contrary to public order, morality, or public policy”—as a workaround. However, this provision was designed to address the characteristics of the mark itself, not the applicant’s intent. Thai Supreme Court decisions have split on whether it can reach bad-faith conduct, creating persistent legal uncertainty. The gap extends beyond examination. Civil actions to cancel a bad-faith registration must be brought within five years—a deadline that frequently expires before foreign brand owners discover the squatted mark. Cancellation through the Board of Trademarks remains available but is slow, costly, and subject to court appeal, leaving bad-faith registrations in force during protracted proceedings. The system effectively rewards squatters and penalizes legitimate owners. Lessons from International Best Practices Several major jurisdictions have already closed this gap. China’s 2019 amendment to Article 4 of the Trademark Law introduced an absolute ground for refusal: “bad faith trademark applications without intent to use shall be rejected.” Bad
Read More
September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
Read More
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
Read More