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

September 3, 2019

Marrakesh Treaty and Exemptions to Copyright Infringement for Disabled Persons in Thailand

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

On January 28, 2019, Thailand, as a member state of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), became the 49th contracting party to accede to theO Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print-Disabled, which became legally binding on Thailand on April 28, 2019. In order to comply, Thailand enacted an amendment to the Copyright Act B.E. 2537 (1994) which became effective on March 11, 2019, in the form of Copyright Act (No. 4) B.E. 2561 (2018).

This article examines the purpose of the Marrakesh Treaty, discusses how the latest amendment to Thailand’s Copyright Act attempts to implement the country’s obligations under the treaty, and examines how the Copyright Act (No. 4) may result in unexpected controversy.

The Marrakesh Treaty

The Marrakesh Treaty is intended to help the visually impaired access copies of printed materials by allowing “authorized entities” to create accessible versions of them without having to seek the prior agreement of, or paying a royalty to, the copyright owner. The Marrakesh Treaty aims to improve the availability of printed works in accessible formats for visually impaired persons worldwide, and the new legislation—Copyright Act No. 4—is intended to pursue that goal by easing the circulation of such materials to defined authorized entities and persons within Thailand and on the international market.

The most significant change in Copyright Act No. 4 pursuant to that goal is section 32/4, and the enabling secondary legislation under the Notification of the Ministry of Commerce B.E. 2562 (2019) issued on February 28, 2019, which together provide an exemption to copyright protections to enable access to published works by disabled readers (as defined in the act).

Exemption Under the New Act

The exemption from copyright infringement under the new act applies to people with visual, hearing, physical, or intellectual disabilities or learning disorders, and to authorized entities founded and operating for the benefit of such individuals, conducting business on a non-profit basis only. The act designates that the steps leading to claiming an exemption must not be in conflict with the copyright owner’s normal exploitation of their copyrighted work, which could then lead to an unreasonable prejudice of the copyright owner’s legitimate right. It is important to note that an authorized entity is required to put in place certain measures to ensure that other persons, who do not meet the definition of “disabled persons” under the act, are not able to access the copyrighted works made available strictly for those who do meet the definition.   

However, the wording of the provisions under the new act has raised a number of interesting issues related to the prevention of misuse of this humanitarian exemption, and the potential for it to be used as a backdoor to copyright infringement.

Definition of Disabled Persons

Some controversy has been raised regarding the definition of “qualified disabled persons,” as stipulated in Copyright Act No. 4—notably that the term in the act seems to be much broader than required by the Marrakesh Treaty.

The Marrakesh Treaty limits the exemptions to copyright infringement provisions to “print-disabled persons”—a term which is broadly accepted to refer to visual impairment. However, Copyright Act No. 4 extends the exemption to “persons with visual, hearing, physical, or intellectual disabilities or learning disorders.” That expands the scope of exemption far beyond the Marrakesh Treaty requirements, raising difficult questions over how the scope of rights of disabled persons should be defined, and raising the potential for the rights of copyright owners to be eroded far beyond the intention of the WIPO members.

Limitations on Access to Copyrighted Works

In addition to providing too broad a scope of exemption regarding the definition of disabled persons, Copyright Act No. 4 provides potentially inadequate limitations to access, as it does not clearly specify what measures are appropriate to prevent exempted copyrighted works from being exploited by others. Copyright Act No. 4 does not set forth appropriate means to monitor whether an authorized entity, acting for those who are defined disabled readers, is operating within the scope allowed, despite the unreasonable prejudice to the copyright owner’s legitimate right that would arise in such a situation. For example, if an association that produced audiobooks for the visually impaired under Copyright Act No. 4 was found to also be making them available to non-visually impaired persons, Copyright Act No. 4 would provide no specific preventative measures, nor any remedy to the copyright owner.

Conclusion

Thailand’s amended Copyright Act is rooted in an admirable attempt to provide a clear humanitarian perspective to Thai copyright law, and to assist those with disabilities, pursuant to the global initiative to increase access to print works for the visually impaired. However, the amendments go far beyond that, leaving several controversial issues about which copyright owners and IP practitioners need to be cognizant in order to foster an adequate balance between copyright owners’ rights and the public interest. The advantages and disadvantages of the amended section 32/4 of Copyright Act No. 4 will become clearer in the future, once access to copyrighted works by defined disabled persons increases. In the meantime, copyright owners should be aware of the potential for misuse, and should remain vigilant toward the increased need to protect their rights.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
August 13, 2026
Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs. Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder. This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder. This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers. The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products
Read More