Copyright challenges in AI model training under Thailand’s legal framework

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Cookies Settings

Copyright challenges in AI model training under Thailand’s legal framework

Sponsored by

tillekegibbins.png
Picture of text explaining how large language models work

Suebsiri Taweepon of Tilleke & Gibbins highlights a critical issue in Thailand’s copyright regime while examining the legal uncertainties, licensing burdens, and data-scraping risks in AI development

AI model training relies heavily on large datasets to teach machine learning algorithms to identify patterns, generate predictions, or create new content. This process often involves data scraping – the automated collection of information from websites and digital platforms – to assemble the comprehensive datasets necessary for effective AI model development.

As AI model training becomes more prevalent, questions surrounding the lawful use of third-party content, particularly copyrighted materials, have gained critical importance. In Thailand, AI model developers must navigate a legal framework primarily governed by the Copyright Act, which creates distinct challenges due to the lack of fair-use provisions.

This article explores the copyright-related obstacles and legal uncertainties that AI model developers face under Thailand’s existing copyright legislation, and provides guidance for managing these complex legal requirements.

Copyright risks in data scraping and AI model training

Thailand’s Copyright Act lacks the broad fair-use or fair-dealing exceptions found in jurisdictions such as the US, creating significant implications for AI model developers. These include the following:

  • Absence of protection for AI model training – using copyrighted material in AI model training is presumed infringing unless covered by specific statutory exceptions or authorised by rights holders. No general legal framework exists for incorporating copyrighted works into AI model training without explicit permission.

  • Heightened licensing requirements – developers must locate and obtain licences for each copyrighted work in their training datasets. Given the volume and variety of data needed for robust AI models, this requirement can be both challenging and financially burdensome.

  • Legal uncertainty and exposure to litigation – the absence of clear statutory direction or established case law creates a legal grey zone for developers. No precedent exists to clarify whether certain uses of copyrighted content for AI model training might be acceptable or considered too insignificant to constitute infringement. This ambiguity leaves developers vulnerable to copyright infringement allegations, potentially resulting in injunctions, monetary damages, or criminal liability.

  • Innovation deterrent – the liability risk and compliance complexity may discourage domestic and international entities from pursuing AI model development or deployment in Thailand. This could inhibit innovation and constrain growth in Thailand’s AI sector.

  • International collaboration challenges – AI model development frequently involves cross-border data sharing. Models trained using datasets compliant with foreign copyright laws may still violate Thai law if deployed or commercialised within Thailand, creating obstacles for international partnerships and technology transfers.

Data scraping and copyright infringement

Data scraping may constitute copyright infringement when it involves reproducing or extracting protected content without authorisation. In Thailand, the absence of fair-use exceptions amplifies this risk. Even copying publicly available website content to create training datasets may be actionable under Thai copyright law, regardless of whether the use is commercial or non-commercial.

Developers should recognise that public accessibility of content does not automatically render its use lawful under Thailand’s copyright framework. Additionally, developers should be aware that the outputs generated by AI models may also raise copyright concerns, particularly if the outputs reproduce or closely resemble protected content from the training data.

Jurisdictional issues and AI model deployment

Thai copyright law may extend to activities conducted outside Thailand when the resulting AI models are subsequently deployed, commercialised, or made accessible within the country. Additionally, AI models trained on datasets that comply with foreign copyright laws may still infringe Thai law if the training data contained copyrighted works not authorised for use in Thailand. This creates additional due diligence obligations for international collaborations and technology transfers.

Strategic recommendations for AI model developers

AI model developers operating in or targeting Thailand should consider implementing the following measures to reduce copyright risks:

  • Adopt comprehensive licensing procedures – identify and secure appropriate licences for relevant copyrighted materials included in training datasets;

  • Evaluate data scraping practices – ensure that data scraping does not involve unauthorised reproduction or extraction of protected content and that all activities comply with website terms of service and copyright notices;

  • Introduce detailed documentation systems – maintain comprehensive records of licensing activities and compliance measures;

  • Track legal developments – stay current with changes in Thai copyright law and emerging guidance related to AI model development and data usage; and

  • Conduct regular risk evaluation – continuously assess legal risks associated with new datasets, AI model deployments, and international partnerships.

Future developments

Thailand is considering potential regulatory reforms and policy measures to address challenges posed by AI and emerging technologies. These discussions encompass possible AI-specific regulations, evaluation of copyright exceptions for technological applications, and potential modifications to data protection legislation.

The scope and timeline of these developments remain uncertain, making it important for stakeholders to stay informed and engage in public consultation processes as they become available.

Key takeaways on AI model training in Thailand

AI model developers in Thailand confront substantial legal obstacles due to the absence of fair-use exceptions in the Copyright Act. This situation increases licensing burdens, elevates litigation risks, and generates uncertainty that may impede innovation and international collaboration. Proactive copyright compliance and monitoring of legal developments are essential for managing these challenges and supporting responsible AI model development.

While jurisdictions such as Singapore and Japan have implemented text and data mining exceptions for AI model training, Thailand has not yet adopted comparable provisions. The industry continues to anticipate legislative reforms or judicial decisions that may offer more definitive guidance for AI model development activities.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

A dispute Down Under shows why trademark lawyers cannot afford to wait on the sidelines when a rival brand gathers momentum
The Third Circuit’s decision in Thomson Reuters v ROSS marks the first appellate-level decision addressing AI and fair use, prompting copyright counsel to consider arguments around potential licensing markets
Injunctions for HandsFree Labs and Align Technology come as the Court of Appeal warns that busy teams must have the staffing and resources to meet UPC deadlines
The chief technology officer remit, which has been created as the firm is building its litigation team, will include expanding the use of AI in patent and legal work and automating manual processes
Former Hoyng Rokh Moneiger partner Laura Alonso, who brought her team to ECIJA in March, discusses plans to expand further and why ECIJA’s ‘IP DNA’ is helping broaden her work
Amita Haylock discusses building an integrated Asia practice as clients increasingly demand that firms combine IP, technology and data expertise
François Pochart, Grégoire Desrousseaux and Lionel Martin, long-standing figures in the firm’s patent litigation team, are set to help launch a Paris-based litigation offering
The Unitary Patent has passed 100,000 registrations, but new data raises the question of whether 30% uptake is a ceiling or a staging post for further growth, say Michael Nielsen and Darren Smyth of EIP and Andrew Samm at Patently
The new generation of in-house IP leaders want commercial judgment, accessibility and flexibility, with AI raising expectations around both fees and delivery
The firm launched a San Diego office earlier this month, but California investment and expansion is far from complete
Gift this article