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​ 

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
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
Read More