Países / Thailand

Derecho de autor e inteligencia artificial en Thailand

Tailandia no tiene una disposición autoral específica para IA y el DIP informó oficialmente que no había precedente judicial al 13 de agosto de 2026. La doctrina de la Supreme Court exige creación propia dentro de una categoría protegida, pero la ley no reduce con seguridad al autor a persona natural: la sección 8 contempla expresamente una persona jurídica. Puede calificar expresión humana identificable en una obra asistida; ninguna autoridad atribuye la expresión autónoma del modelo al usuario, desarrollador o productor.

Investigación abierta. Corte general del Atlas: 31 de agosto de 2026. Cobertura no significa revisión completa ni vigencia certificada.

Explorar Thailand en el mapa →

Marco y alcance

La palabra person de la sección 4 no permite saltar a una regla categórica de autor natural, porque la sección 8 contempla expresamente un autor persona jurídica. Sin embargo, la Supreme Court exige repetidamente que la obra se origine en el propio hacer o actividad creativa del reclamante y ninguna norma asigna la expresión determinada por el modelo al usuario, desarrollador o productor. El output autónomo es incierto, no un sí o no verificado. Sólo puede protegerse la expresión de origen humano probada y fijada en la obra final: texto o imágenes creados por una persona, revisiones ejecutadas independientemente, selección, disposición o transformación creativas. Prompts, iteraciones y selección son evidencia, no el output protegido por sí mismos. Deben excluirse ideas, hechos, material estándar o funcional, dominio público y expresión determinada por el modelo. Grabación sonora, audiovisual o cinematográfica, interpretación y radiodifusión pueden tener derechos separados bajo sus categorías y normas conexas. Poseer o producir una fijación no establece automáticamente autoría sobre composición, imagen, guion, voz o interpretación sintéticos. Una notificación puede probar cronología o una afirmación de parte, como ilustra 19350/2557, pero el formulario Lor Khor 01 vigente dice que no crea derechos. Declarar uso íntegro de IA no es una concesión.

Limitaciones documentadas

No published Thai GenAI output-authorship judgment or individualized DIP merits decision was located; official DIP says no precedent existed on 2026-08-13. The official Supreme Court database timed out/was not indexed during review. The accessible ThaiDeka pages reproduce digests attributed to the Supreme Court Judicial Assistants/Academic Office but are not official-host URLs. The ten Supreme Court digest identifiers disclose only the decision/reporting year; exact decision day/month was not located, so dates.decision remains null and no artificial ISO date was inserted. DIP aggregate notification data omit AI use, title, deposited work, claims, examiner analysis and appeals; item-level confidentiality/indexing prevents universal conclusions. Section 8's express juristic-person-author wording makes a categorical natural-person-only conclusion unsafe, while no case explains how a juristic person itself satisfies making/creation for an autonomous output. No published Thai authority sets a prompt/iteration/selection threshold or addresses allocation among user, model developer, employer, commissioner and producer. Thai text controls over the informational English consolidation; decisive phrases should be confirmed against the Gazette in contested litigation.

Registro y actos documentados

Estado
no_registry
Resumen
Tailandia no tiene registro constitutivo de derecho de autor. El DIP acepta una notificación informativa voluntaria y puede emitir un documento que la refleje, pero el formulario vigente dice que el acto no crea derechos. Por eso ni una notificación agregada 'aprobada' ni una casilla 'totalmente IA' se cuentan como concesión de derecho de autor sobre output autónomo.
Actos documentados

    Casos nacionales

    Supreme Court Judgment 2750/2537 — Royal Institute Dictionary

    Nombre
    Supreme Court Judgment 2750/2537 — Royal Institute Dictionary
    Cita
    ฎีกา 2750/2537
    Tribunal
    Supreme Court of Thailand, Intellectual Property division
    Instancia
    última instancia
    Fechas
    year
    1994
    Estado
    year-only-reporter
    Resultado
    Copyright and infringement affirmed; appellate relief modified and unsupported components denied.
    Resumen
    Originality was not novelty: the dictionary was protected because its expression originated in the claimant's own initiative and effort rather than copying; the defendants infringed substantial expression.
    Antecedentes
    The Royal Institute prepared its 1982 dictionary through collection, alphabetical arrangement, pronunciation, definitions, etymology and illustrations. Defendants' 1987 dictionaries reproduced about 14,000 definitions verbatim, modified or rearranged about 19,000 and copied about 130 illustrations and presentation features; a manager admitted infringement.
    Historia procesal
    The Royal Institute filed a civil copyright suit. The trial court dismissed; the appellate court found liability, awarded damages and ordered delivery. Both sides appealed. The Supreme Court upheld copyright and infringement but narrowed remedies and damages, rejecting unproved passing-off, market-loss and future-damage components and holding delivery available only through the criminal statutory mechanism then in force.
    Cuestión jurídica
    Whether a dictionary using a conventional method nevertheless originated in the claimant's own work and whether the defendants copied a substantial protected expression.
    Criterio
    Originality was not novelty: the dictionary was protected because its expression originated in the claimant's own initiative and effort rather than copying; the defendants infringed substantial expression.
    Fundamento decisivo
    A work may be original without being novel when it originates in the claimant's own creative undertaking and is not copied or adapted without permission.
    Límites
    This pre-1994-Act case concerned a documented institutional human compilation. Its references to labour cannot alone resolve whether prompting or selecting model output makes the output originate in a claimant, and it did not consider AI, probabilistic generation or autonomous expression.
    Relevancia
    doctrina-general
    Referencias relacionadas
      Peso del precedente
      Final Supreme Court national authority with high guiding weight; Thailand does not operate a strict common-law stare decisis system, and the AI analogy remains untested. Integración/votación: Three-judge panel: Preecha Chalermwanich, Saman Wetwinij and Sangwian Rattanamung (Thai transliteration); individual votes and separate opinions were not published.
      Fuente
      Referencia
      Supreme Court Judgment 2750/2537 — Royal Institute Dictionary
      Enlace
      Consultar fuente
      Autoridad
      ThaiDeka reproduction identifying source as the Office/Division of Supreme Court Judicial Assistants
      Tipo
      national Supreme Court originality, source-origin and compilation analogue; not an AI case; decided under the repealed 1978 Act
      Localizador
      ThaiDeka headings ย่อสั้น (short digest), เนื้อหาคำพิพากษา (judgment text), and ข้อมูลฎีกา (metadata/coram); especially digest paragraphs on 1978 Act ss 4 and 12 and full-text paragraphs describing the dictionaries and remedies
      Verificación documentada
      Sí

      Supreme Court Judgment 9523/2544 — Suchat Asawamanachai v Thai Capital Finance Co Ltd

      Nombre
      Supreme Court Judgment 9523/2544 — Suchat Asawamanachai v Thai Capital Finance Co Ltd
      Cita
      ฎีกา 9523/2544
      Tribunal
      Supreme Court of Thailand, Intellectual Property division
      Instancia
      última instancia
      Fechas
      year
      2001
      Estado
      year-only-reporter
      Resultado
      Employee ownership and return obligation affirmed; damages reduced from THB 200,000 to THB 20,000.
      Resumen
      The employee-author retained copyright absent a written agreement vesting it in the employer.
      Antecedentes
      An employee created IBM A/S400 financial software systems for the employer and allowed use without charge. After leaving employment he withdrew permission and sought return while the company continued to use the programs.
      Historia procesal
      The employee sued for return/value and damages. The Central IP and International Trade Court ordered return and awarded THB 200,000. The employer appealed directly; authorship was treated as admitted because it was not specifically denied. The Supreme Court kept the ownership/return ruling and reduced damages to THB 20,000.
      Cuestión jurídica
      Who owned computer programs created in employment absent a written allocation under Copyright Act section 9.
      Criterio
      The employee-author retained copyright absent a written agreement vesting it in the employer.
      Fundamento decisivo
      Employment and access to the employer's system do not by themselves transfer copyright from the person who created the program.
      Límites
      The case concerns authorship/ownership of source programs, not authorship of their runtime outputs. Authorship was procedurally admitted, so the judgment did not develop a causation or creative-control test for computer-generated content.
      Relevancia
      doctrina-general
      Referencias relacionadas
        Peso del precedente
        Final Supreme Court authority on section 9 allocation; only an analogy for separating ownership of an AI system from output authorship. Integración/votación: Three-judge panel: Phinit Phetroong, Sermsak Phlattura and Phichit Khamfaeng (Thai transliteration); individual votes/separate opinions not published.
        Fuente
        Referencia
        Supreme Court Judgment 9523/2544 — Suchat Asawamanachai v Thai Capital Finance Co Ltd
        Enlace
        Consultar fuente
        Autoridad
        ThaiDeka reproduction identifying source as the Office/Division of Supreme Court Judicial Assistants
        Tipo
        national employee-software ownership analogue; not an AI-output case
        Localizador
        ThaiDeka ย่อสั้น paras on s 9 and continued use; เนื้อหาคำพิพากษา opening claim and final disposition; ข้อมูลฎีกา coram/source
        Verificación documentada
        Sí

        Supreme Court Judgment 973/2551 — Paijit Punyapan v Royal Institute

        Nombre
        Supreme Court Judgment 973/2551 — Paijit Punyapan v Royal Institute
        Cita
        ฎีกา 973/2551; Supreme Court docket ทก.(ป)55/2547
        Tribunal
        Supreme Court of Thailand, Intellectual Property division
        Instancia
        última instancia
        Fechas
        year
        2008
        Estado
        year-only-reporter
        Resultado
        Mixed merits holding: protection for the book as a whole, no copyright in the seven disputed definition components; the accessible digest does not publish the final remedial order.
        Resumen
        The book's independently researched and arranged commentary was protected, but the seven definitions drawn from statutes or pre-existing legal usage were not the claimant's copyright.
        Antecedentes
        The claimant wrote and arranged a book criticizing dictionary definitions through legal sources and commentary. The whole research and arrangement reflected his effort, but the seven disputed proposed definitions either reproduced statutory content or meanings already used and taught by the legal community.
        Historia procesal
        The accessible Supreme Court digest identifies the parties, Supreme Court docket and originating Central IP and International Trade Court, but omits a separate procedural narrative and final costs/order paragraph. No posture beyond review by the Supreme Court is asserted.
        Cuestión jurídica
        Whether the book as a whole and, separately, seven proposed legal definitions contained the claimant's own protected expression.
        Criterio
        The book's independently researched and arranged commentary was protected, but the seven definitions drawn from statutes or pre-existing legal usage were not the claimant's copyright.
        Fundamento decisivo
        Subsistence is granular: a larger work can be original while particular statutory, conventional or pre-existing components remain unprotected.
        Límites
        No AI tool or generated layer was involved. The case does not say that selection of any output is creative; it requires identifying what expression actually originated with the claimant.
        Relevancia
        doctrina-general
        Referencias relacionadas
          Peso del precedente
          Final Supreme Court authority with high guiding weight for separating protected human arrangement from unprotected components. Integración/votación: Three-judge panel: Kriangchai Chuengchaturaphit, Suwat Wattanahathai and Panyarat Wirayawanich (Thai transliteration); individual votes/separate opinions not published.
          Fuente
          Referencia
          Supreme Court Judgment 973/2551 — Paijit Punyapan v Royal Institute
          Enlace
          Consultar fuente
          Autoridad
          ThaiDeka reproduction identifying source as the Office/Division of Supreme Court Judicial Assistants
          Tipo
          national granular-expression and independent-creation analogue; not an AI case
          Localizador
          ThaiDeka ย่อสั้น paras 1-5 on s 4, the whole book and the seven definitions; ข้อมูลฎีกา docket, parties, coram and source
          Verificación documentada
          Sí

          Supreme Court Judgment 7121/2552 — paired-dancers bas-relief

          Nombre
          Supreme Court Judgment 7121/2552 — paired-dancers bas-relief
          Cita
          ฎีกา 7121/2552
          Tribunal
          Supreme Court of Thailand, Intellectual Property division
          Instancia
          última instancia
          Fechas
          year
          2009
          Estado
          year-only-reporter
          Resultado
          Conviction reversed; defendant acquitted.
          Resumen
          Reasonable doubt about independent creation defeated the criminal copyright charge; effort spent copying or adapting was not creative effort that generated copyright.
          Antecedentes
          The complainant claimed copyright in a terracotta bas-relief of paired dancers and asserted that she drew and modelled it. Evidence showed a closely corresponding Bayon-temple sculpture and common Thai/Khmer motifs, creating doubt that most or all of her template had been copied from public-domain sources with only minor additions.
          Historia procesal
          The public prosecutor charged infringement; the alleged owner joined as co-plaintiff. The Central IP and International Trade Court convicted, imposing three months and THB 60,000, imprisonment suspended for one year. The defendant appealed and the Supreme Court reversed and acquitted.
          Cuestión jurídica
          Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the claimant's sculpture resulted from her own originating creation rather than copying public-domain forms.
          Criterio
          Reasonable doubt about independent creation defeated the criminal copyright charge; effort spent copying or adapting was not creative effort that generated copyright.
          Fundamento decisivo
          Effort in copying or trivial adaptation is not the self-originating creative undertaking required for copyright, and criminal subsistence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
          Límites
          The reasonable-doubt standard and public-domain copying facts are central. It is not a universal minimum-effort test for civil cases or an AI authorship rule.
          Relevancia
          doctrina-general
          Referencias relacionadas
            Peso del precedente
            Final Supreme Court criminal authority; strong but context-sensitive guidance on creation versus reproduction. Integración/votación: Three-judge panel: Boonrod Tanprasert, Polrat Pratumtan and Ratan Kongkaew (Thai transliteration); no individual vote/separate opinion published.
            Fuente
            Referencia
            Supreme Court Judgment 7121/2552 — paired-dancers bas-relief
            Enlace
            Consultar fuente
            Autoridad
            ThaiDeka reproduction identifying source as the Supreme Court Academic Office
            Tipo
            national criminal originality/copying analogue; not an AI case
            Localizador
            ThaiDeka ย่อสั้น; เนื้อหาคำพิพากษา opening charge, trial outcome and analysis; ข้อมูลฎีกา parties/coram/source
            Verificación documentada
            Sí

            Supreme Court Judgments 18803-18804/2556 — Pen Choo Kab Pee film

            Nombre
            Supreme Court Judgments 18803-18804/2556 — Pen Choo Kab Pee film
            Cita
            ฎีกา 18803-18804/2556; Supreme Court docket ทกป34/2554
            Tribunal
            Supreme Court of Thailand, Intellectual Property division
            Instancia
            última instancia
            Fechas
            year
            2013
            Estado
            year-only-reporter
            Resultado
            Dismissal affirmed; plaintiffs did not prove infringement.
            Resumen
            Ideas and inspiration were not protected under section 6(2); limited conceptual similarities and a common ghost motif did not show adaptation of protected expression.
            Antecedentes
            The film Pen Choo Kab Pee drew acknowledged inspiration from Hem Vejakorn's ghost novels and paintings and shared concepts including a frightening head-down ghost. Its plot, scenes and particular cinematic expression were materially different.
            Historia procesal
            Two civil suits were consolidated. The Central IP and International Trade Court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims. They appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which affirmed and ordered costs borne as stated in the judgment.
            Cuestión jurídica
            Whether acknowledged inspiration and overlapping ghost concepts made the film an infringing adaptation of the novels or paintings.
            Criterio
            Ideas and inspiration were not protected under section 6(2); limited conceptual similarities and a common ghost motif did not show adaptation of protected expression.
            Fundamento decisivo
            A claimant must identify copied expression; a shared concept, style, motif or acknowledged inspiration is insufficient.
            Límites
            This is an infringement/idea-expression case, not a decision that prompts, themes or styles can never contribute to authorship. It says nothing about who created model-determined expression.
            Relevancia
            doctrina-general
            Referencias relacionadas
              Peso del precedente
              Final Supreme Court authority with high guiding weight for idea/expression separation. Integración/votación: Three-judge panel: Thatchaphan Praphutthanitisan, Aram Senamontri and Parinya Deephadung (Thai transliteration); individual votes/separate opinions not published.
              Fuente
              Referencia
              Supreme Court Judgments 18803-18804/2556 — Pen Choo Kab Pee film
              Enlace
              Consultar fuente
              Autoridad
              ThaiDeka reproduction identifying source as the Office/Division of Supreme Court Judicial Assistants
              Tipo
              national idea-expression and inspiration analogue; not an AI case
              Localizador
              ThaiDeka ย่อสั้น on inspiration and Copyright Act s 6(2); เนื้อหาคำพิพากษา comparison and disposition; ข้อมูลฎีกา docket/coram/source
              Verificación documentada
              Sí

              Supreme Court Judgment 13535/2557 — Bangkok Guide maps

              Nombre
              Supreme Court Judgment 13535/2557 — Bangkok Guide maps
              Cita
              ฎีกา 13535/2557
              Tribunal
              Supreme Court of Thailand, Intellectual Property division
              Instancia
              última instancia
              Fechas
              year
              2014
              Estado
              year-only-reporter
              Resultado
              Partial infringement convictions affirmed; fines reduced to THB 200,000 each, with the suspended custodial sentence otherwise maintained.
              Resumen
              Street facts were free, but the team's surveyed selection, arrangement and graphic expression could be protected; the claimant could enforce only the original transferred layer, not later improvements outside the transfer.
              Antecedentes
              A human mapping team surveyed and measured routes, gathered and analysed facts, chose material, scale and presentation, and prepared the maps. A competing map repeated three errors. The claimant's published map also included later improvements not covered by the original transfer chain.
              Historia procesal
              A private criminal copyright complaint proceeded in the Central IP and International Trade Court. Defendants 1 and 2 were convicted and fined THB 300,000 each; defendant 2 received six months suspended, while defendant 3 was acquitted. The convicted defendants appealed; the Supreme Court affirmed infringement within the claimant's transferred layer but reduced each fine to THB 200,000.
              Cuestión jurídica
              Whether human survey, selection, analysis, scale and arrangement produced protected map expression, and which historical layer the claimant actually owned.
              Criterio
              Street facts were free, but the team's surveyed selection, arrangement and graphic expression could be protected; the claimant could enforce only the original transferred layer, not later improvements outside the transfer.
              Fundamento decisivo
              Human selection and arrangement of unprotected facts can generate a protected layer, but rights extend only to the layer actually created and owned.
              Límites
              The case had extensive evidence of a human survey and mapping workflow. It does not establish that selecting one AI response or owning a base model creates copyright in all model-generated expression.
              Relevancia
              autoria-asistida
              Referencias relacionadas
                Peso del precedente
                Final Supreme Court authority with high guiding weight on human selection/arrangement and granular ownership. Integración/votación: Three-judge panel: Thatchaphan Praphutthanitisan, Aram Senamontri and Parinya Deephadung (Thai transliteration); individual votes/separate opinions not published.
                Fuente
                Referencia
                Supreme Court Judgment 13535/2557 — Bangkok Guide maps
                Enlace
                Consultar fuente
                Autoridad
                ThaiDeka reproduction identifying source as the Office/Division of Supreme Court Judicial Assistants
                Tipo
                national human selection/arrangement and layered-ownership analogue; not an AI case
                Localizador
                ThaiDeka ย่อสั้น on survey/selection and transfer layers; เนื้อหาคำพิพากษา procedure and final disposition; ข้อมูลฎีกา parties/coram/source
                Verificación documentada
                Sí

                Supreme Court Judgment 14580/2557 — ancient textile patterns

                Nombre
                Supreme Court Judgment 14580/2557 — ancient textile patterns
                Cita
                ฎีกา 14580/2557; Supreme Court docket ทก.(อ)263/2555
                Tribunal
                Supreme Court of Thailand, Intellectual Property division
                Instancia
                última instancia
                Fechas
                year
                2014
                Estado
                year-only-reporter
                Resultado
                Acquittals and return of seized property affirmed.
                Resumen
                The modifications did not transform the ancient patterns in a substantial creative respect and therefore did not create the claimed copyright.
                Antecedentes
                Two human designers combined or resized ancient elephant, Thai, Khmer and Western motifs for loom-compatible bed-textile layouts. Evidence showed the overall layouts were standard and the changes preserved the ancient core; expert percentages of change appeared only as evidence.
                Historia procesal
                The public prosecutor charged three defendants; the textile company joined as co-plaintiff. The Central IP and International Trade Court acquitted and ordered return of the textiles and loom. Prosecutor and co-plaintiff appealed; the Supreme Court affirmed.
                Cuestión jurídica
                Whether minor resizing, added details and conventional arrangement of public-domain motifs created an original applied-art work.
                Criterio
                The modifications did not transform the ancient patterns in a substantial creative respect and therefore did not create the claimed copyright.
                Fundamento decisivo
                Copying, resizing or making minor conventional changes to public-domain material does not become an original work merely because skill or effort was expended.
                Límites
                Criminal burdens and specific textile evidence matter. The court did not adopt the expert's percentages as a universal numerical originality threshold and considered no AI workflow.
                Relevancia
                doctrina-general
                Referencias relacionadas
                  Peso del precedente
                  Final Supreme Court criminal authority; strong guiding analogy on insufficient human transformation. Integración/votación: Three-judge panel: Parinya Deephadung, Nuannoi Phonthawi and Thatchaphan Praphutthanitisan (Thai transliteration); no individual votes/separate opinions published.
                  Fuente
                  Referencia
                  Supreme Court Judgment 14580/2557 — ancient textile patterns
                  Enlace
                  Consultar fuente
                  Autoridad
                  ThaiDeka reproduction identifying source as the Office/Division of Supreme Court Judicial Assistants
                  Tipo
                  national insufficient-transformation analogue; not an AI case
                  Localizador
                  ThaiDeka ย่อสั้น on ancient motifs/minor changes; เนื้อหาคำพิพากษา opening charges, trial result, appeal and analysis; ข้อมูลฎีกา docket/coram/source
                  Verificación documentada
                  Sí

                  Supreme Court Judgment 19350/2557 — Buddha face on Bodhi leaf sculptures

                  Nombre
                  Supreme Court Judgment 19350/2557 — Buddha face on Bodhi leaf sculptures
                  Cita
                  ฎีกา 19350/2557; Supreme Court docket ทก.(อ)122/2556
                  Tribunal
                  Supreme Court of Thailand, Intellectual Property division
                  Instancia
                  última instancia
                  Fechas
                  year
                  2014
                  Estado
                  year-only-reporter
                  Resultado
                  Dismissal reversed on the accepted count; both defendants convicted, fines reduced and custodial terms suspended.
                  Resumen
                  The claimant's independently made three-dimensional expression was protected notwithstanding ancient subject matter; the defendants infringed. Notification records supported the evidentiary chronology but did not replace the court's merits analysis.
                  Antecedentes
                  The claimant developed three-dimensional Buddha faces on Bodhi leaves through modelling, optical/reflection experiments and specific facial and spiral choices. Both sides had filed DIP copyright-information notifications for related sculptures, and police later seized similar moulds and products from the defendants' production site.
                  Historia procesal
                  The claimant brought a private criminal prosecution. The Central IP and International Trade Court accepted only the reproduction/adaptation count, rejected the sale count and ultimately dismissed. The claimant appealed. The Supreme Court reversed on the accepted count, convicted both defendants, imposed six months and THB 120,000 each, reduced to four months and THB 80,000 each, and suspended imprisonment for one year.
                  Cuestión jurídica
                  Whether a sculpture using ancient/natural Buddha imagery nevertheless reflected independent originating expression and whether the defendants copied it; what evidentiary role DIP notifications played.
                  Criterio
                  The claimant's independently made three-dimensional expression was protected notwithstanding ancient subject matter; the defendants infringed. Notification records supported the evidentiary chronology but did not replace the court's merits analysis.
                  Fundamento decisivo
                  Old subject matter can support a new protected expression when the claimant proves independent expressive choices; a DIP notification is evidence, not conclusive creation of the right.
                  Límites
                  The case involved extensive human physical modelling and infringement evidence. It does not treat a notification, applicant name or mere AI-use disclosure as a substantive copyright grant, nor decide model-generated expression.
                  Relevancia
                  administrativo
                  Referencias relacionadas
                    Peso del precedente
                    Final Supreme Court authority with high guiding weight on originality and the evidentiary, non-conclusive role of notification. Integración/votación: Three-judge panel: Parinya Deephadung, Nuannoi Phonthawi and Thatchaphan Praphutthanitisan (Thai transliteration); individual votes/separate opinions not published.
                    Fuente
                    Referencia
                    Supreme Court Judgment 19350/2557 — Buddha face on Bodhi leaf sculptures
                    Enlace
                    Consultar fuente
                    Autoridad
                    ThaiDeka reproduction identifying source as the Office/Division of Supreme Court Judicial Assistants
                    Tipo
                    national originality and notification-as-evidence analogue; not an AI case
                    Localizador
                    ThaiDeka ย่อสั้น on originality/notification; เนื้อหาคำพิพากษา paras on notifications ศ2.4080/4081, creation evidence, infringement and final sentence; ข้อมูลฎีกา docket/coram/source
                    Verificación documentada
                    Sí

                    Supreme Court Judgment 1265/2563 — Nakhon Si Thammarat city-gate design

                    Nombre
                    Supreme Court Judgment 1265/2563 — Nakhon Si Thammarat city-gate design
                    Cita
                    ฎีกา 1265/2563; Supreme Court docket ทก.(ป)2/2562
                    Tribunal
                    Supreme Court of Thailand, Intellectual Property division
                    Instancia
                    última instancia
                    Fechas
                    year
                    2020
                    Estado
                    year-only-reporter
                    Resultado
                    Trial dismissal modified; municipality ordered to pay THB 200,000 plus interest and costs.
                    Resumen
                    The design was the claimant's original painting/design despite known elements and requested revisions because he independently selected, drew, arranged and exercised judgment over the expression.
                    Antecedentes
                    A shopowner/designer researched city history and vernacular architecture, selected five monuments, chose perspectives, lines and scale, arranged Thai motifs, flowers and zodiac elements, and revised the city-gate drawings following municipal feedback. The municipality later tendered and built three gates using the design.
                    Historia procesal
                    The designer filed a civil action. The Central IP and International Trade Court dismissed. On direct appeal the Supreme Court reversed as to the municipality and awarded THB 200,000 plus interest and costs.
                    Cuestión jurídica
                    Whether selection and arrangement of known local elements, including revisions requested by a commissioner, left sufficient originating human expression and authorship.
                    Criterio
                    The design was the claimant's original painting/design despite known elements and requested revisions because he independently selected, drew, arranged and exercised judgment over the expression.
                    Fundamento decisivo
                    External instructions or feedback do not displace authorship where a person remains responsible for the particular expressive selection and execution.
                    Límites
                    This is strong evidence of detailed human authorship, not a rule that a prompt-user always authors an AI output. The court did not address unpredictable model expression or whether prompt constraints are embodied in the output.
                    Relevancia
                    autoria-asistida
                    Referencias relacionadas
                      Peso del precedente
                      Final Supreme Court authority with high guiding weight on human choices, feedback and execution. Integración/votación: Three-judge panel: Sophon Bangyikhan, Niphan Chuaysakun and Chalit Kathinasamit (Thai transliteration); individual votes/separate opinions not published.
                      Fuente
                      Referencia
                      Supreme Court Judgment 1265/2563 — Nakhon Si Thammarat city-gate design
                      Enlace
                      Consultar fuente
                      Autoridad
                      ThaiDeka reproduction identifying source as the Office/Division of Supreme Court Judicial Assistants
                      Tipo
                      national human-choice and revision analogue; not an AI case
                      Localizador
                      ThaiDeka case-analysis issue/result plus เนื้อหาคำพิพากษา on the five monuments, perspectives, line/scale/arrangement and revisions; final disposition; ข้อมูลฎีกา docket/coram/source
                      Verificación documentada
                      Sí

                      Supreme Court Judgment 7957/2568 — Pirelli lightning tire-tread

                      Nombre
                      Supreme Court Judgment 7957/2568 — Pirelli lightning tire-tread
                      Cita
                      ฎีกา 7957/2568; Supreme Court docket ทก.(ป)19/2567
                      Tribunal
                      Supreme Court of Thailand, Intellectual Property division
                      Instancia
                      última instancia
                      Fechas
                      year
                      2025
                      Estado
                      year-only-reporter
                      Resultado
                      Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of copyright and trade-name claims; Supreme Court costs borne as ordered.
                      Resumen
                      The minor differences from a natural/common lightning motif and function-driven arrangement were insufficient to make the tread a protected creative work; the trade-name claim also failed.
                      Antecedentes
                      A roughly ten-person research-and-development team designed a motorcycle-tire lightning tread, adjusting placement, angles and sizes chiefly for performance and wear while also claiming speed/power symbolism and brand identity. Defendants sold a similar tread and used a challenged trade name.
                      Historia procesal
                      The Pirelli claim was filed/amended on 2019-08-23. The Central IP and International Trade Court granted partial relief. The Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases reversed and dismissed. The Supreme Court permitted appeal and affirmed dismissal.
                      Cuestión jurídica
                      Whether the lightning-tread drawing/arrangement was a self-originated protected work or an ordinary/functional product design, and whether the trade name was confusing.
                      Criterio
                      The minor differences from a natural/common lightning motif and function-driven arrangement were insufficient to make the tread a protected creative work; the trade-name claim also failed.
                      Fundamento decisivo
                      A claimed object must embody self-originated expression in a protected category; ordinary or predominantly function-driven arrangement is not automatically copyrightable despite team effort or commercial design intent.
                      Límites
                      The case mixed copyright, industrial-design functionality and trade-name issues. It does not categorically bar useful works, adopt a human-effort quantum or decide AI authorship; it asks what protected expression the evidence shows.
                      Relevancia
                      doctrina-general
                      Referencias relacionadas
                        Peso del precedente
                        Most recent located final Supreme Court statement of originality; high national guiding weight, with AI application unresolved. Integración/votación: Three-judge panel: Peeti Nathaphakti, Chaiyos Worananthasiri and Narong Klanwarin (Thai transliteration); individual votes/separate opinions not published.
                        Fuente
                        Referencia
                        Supreme Court Judgment 7957/2568 — Pirelli lightning tire-tread
                        Enlace
                        Consultar fuente
                        Autoridad
                        ThaiDeka reproduction identifying source as the Office/Division of Supreme Court Judicial Assistants
                        Tipo
                        current national originality/functionality analogue; not an AI case
                        Localizador
                        ThaiDeka ประเด็นข้อกฎหมาย and ข้อกฎหมาย; ย่อสั้น; เนื้อหาคำพิพากษา final paragraphs; ข้อมูลฎีกา docket, coram and source
                        Verificación documentada
                        Sí

                        Procedimientos conocidos

                        No hay entradas en esta colección del Atlas. Esto no demuestra que no existan casos.

                        Autoridades reportadas

                        No hay entradas en esta colección del Atlas. Esto no demuestra que no existan casos.

                        Referencias extranjeras comparadas

                        No hay entradas en esta colección del Atlas. Esto no demuestra que no existan casos.

                        Referencias de contexto

                        No hay entradas en esta colección del Atlas. Esto no demuestra que no existan casos.

                        Doctrina supranacional

                        No hay entradas en esta colección del Atlas. Esto no demuestra que no existan casos.

                        Fuentes de la ficha

                        Alcance de la confianza documental

                        high on statutory text, non-constitutive notification and absence of a published AI precedent; medium on the outcome for autonomous output because section 4 says person, section 8 expressly contemplates a juristic-person author, and no court or AI-specific provision resolves attribution

                        Enlaces a expedientes individuales