AI Copyright in Thailand: What the Copyright Act Says

What Does AI Copyright in Thailand Mean?

AI copyright in Thailand covers two separate questions. The first is whether output made with an AI tool can be owned as a copyright work. The second is whether producing or using that output infringes someone else’s copyright. The Copyright Act B.E. 2537 answers both through its general rules, because it contains no AI-specific provision.

The Department of Intellectual Property has stated publicly (August–September 2026) that the Act does not deal with AI specifically and that no Thai court decision has set a precedent on AI and copyright. The DIP is applying existing copyright principles instead.

Who Is an Author Under the Thai Copyright Act?

Section 4 defines the author (phu sang san) as the one who makes or causes the creation of any work that is a copyright work under the Act. Section 8 then makes the author the owner of copyright in the work they create, subject to conditions on nationality, residence or place of first publication.

The definition does not mention AI or any machine. Published commentary on Thai law reads the definition as referring to a person who creates, and concludes that a human creator is required for protection. That reading has not been confirmed by a Thai court. Section 19 does contemplate a juristic person as an author: where the author is a juristic person, copyright lasts fifty years from creation or, if the work is published in that time, fifty years from first publication. For a human author, copyright lasts for the author’s life and fifty years after death (Section 19).

Originality and expression

Section 6 lists the protected categories, including literary works, musical works and sound recordings, and states that protection does not extend to ideas, procedures, processes, systems, concepts, principles or discoveries. Read together with the Section 4 definition of the author, these provisions are the statutory basis on which AI-assisted output is assessed.

Can AI-Generated Music Be Protected in Thailand?

A work created entirely by AI, without sufficient human creativity, may fall outside copyright protection under the current reading of the Act. If so, the user holds no exclusive rights and cannot stop others from copying the output. Where a human supplies original lyrics, melodies or arrangements that the AI then follows, protection is more likely for those human-created parts.

Published commentary also states that writing a detailed prompt does not automatically make the user the author. Protection depends on the human contribution to the specific expression claimed. Human edits added to AI-generated material are protected only for the parts the human created.

AI Copyright in Thailand, Element by Element

A single song contains several distinct works under the Act. Each element is assessed separately, so one person may hold copyright in original lyrics while an AI-generated melody remains unprotected, or the reverse.

This structure matters for AI-assisted releases. A human-produced master recording of an AI-generated composition may still be protected as a sound recording, even if the composition itself is not. Similarly, a human singer who performs that composition may hold performer’s rights. Under Section 44, performers hold exclusive rights to broadcast or communicate a live performance to the public, to record an unrecorded performance, and to reproduce recordings made without their consent. Section 45 entitles performers to equitable remuneration when a commercially released recording of their performance is broadcast or communicated to the public.

Who Owns AI-Assisted Works Made for a Business?

Ownership follows the author, unless the Act or a contract says otherwise. Two sections govern works produced for a business. Under Section 9, copyright in a work created by an employee in the course of employment belongs to the employee-author, unless a written agreement provides otherwise. The employer may still communicate the work to the public for the purposes of the employment.

Under Section 10, copyright in a commissioned work belongs to the party that commissioned it, unless the author and the commissioning party agree otherwise. For studios, labels and brands using AI tools, these rules apply only to the parts that qualify as copyright works in the first place.

AI platform terms

Permission to use AI-generated output commercially comes from the platform’s terms of service. That permission does not necessarily mean the user owns copyright in the output. Nor does it guarantee that using the output will not infringe a third party’s rights.

Infringement Risk in AI Copyright in Thailand

The absence of protection for AI output does not remove infringement risk. Under Section 15, the copyright owner holds the exclusive rights to reproduce or adapt the work, to communicate it to the public, to rent originals or copies of sound recordings, and to license others. Section 27 treats reproduction, adaptation or communication to the public without permission as infringement. Section 28 applies the same rule to sound recordings and adds rental of the original or copies.

The DIP has stated that copying or adapting a song may infringe where recognisable elements remain, such as lyrics, melody or composition. Using AI to imitate another person’s melody or lyrics without permission may therefore infringe. Genres, styles and general themes are not protected, and anyone may use them as inspiration. The DIP also notes that similarity-detection tools are only a preliminary aid and do not establish infringement.

Secondary infringement

Section 31 extends liability to a person who knows, or has reason to know, that a work was made by infringing copyright and who, for profit, sells it, communicates it to the public, distributes it in a way that may damage the owner, or imports it into Thailand.

Several rights holders in one song

According to the DIP, one song can involve separately held rights of the lyricist, the composer, the arranger, the sound-recording producer and the performers. Permission from one of them may not be enough. A licence for conventional reproduction may not extend to AI voice conversion, remixing or new tracks built on the song, so the scope and conditions of each licence need to be checked. Music whose copyright has expired may be used as source material, but a particular sound recording, performance, arrangement or later version may still be protected.

Training AI on Protected Music

Thailand has no general, open-ended fair use doctrine and no express text-and-data-mining exception. Section 32 sets a general test: an act does not infringe if it does not conflict with the owner’s normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the owner’s legitimate rights. It then lists specific permitted acts, including research or study that is not for profit and use for one’s own benefit.

The DIP has stated that an AI system may infringe by copying or processing a music file during creation, where it lacks permission and no exception applies. The non-profit research exception may apply to certain reproduction or adaptation, and each case is assessed on its own facts.

Records That Support AI Copyright in Thailand

Copyright in Thailand arises as soon as a work is completed, without registration. The DIP advises creators to keep evidence of their creative process, such as original files, timestamps, drafts and recordings. For AI-assisted work, these records show which parts came from a human and which came from the tool.

• Copyright notification: the DIP accepts online notification of copyright works, which may serve as preliminary evidence of ownership and creation date. It is not a condition of protection.
• Trademarks and sound marks: the DIP points to registration of artist names, logos and distinctive sounds, since AI and deepfakes can imitate voices and images.
• Impersonation: imitating an artist or copying a stage name may give rise to civil claims outside IP law, such as a court injunction, depending on the facts.
• Mediation: the DIP offers mediation for copyright disputes and has mediated a case involving content adapted with AI and published online without permission.

A separate draft AI law prepared by ETDA would add labelling duties for AI-generated content; it remains a draft and is covered in our article on the Thailand AI Act.

Frequently Asked Questions

Managing AI Copyright in Thailand

AI copyright in Thailand rests on rules written before generative AI: authorship under Section 4, originality and expression under Section 6, ownership under Sections 8 to 10, and infringement under Sections 27, 28 and 31. Until a court or an amendment addresses AI directly, the human contribution to each element decides what can be owned, and licence scope decides what can be used. Our guide to music copyright in Thailand covers ownership and royalties in more detail, and our intellectual property lawyers in Thailand advise creators, labels and brands on these questions. The Act is published by the Office of the Council of State, and copyright notification is handled by the Department of Intellectual Property.