Key Takeaways

When an employee creates an invention or a creative work on the job, Thai law produces opposite defaults for patents and copyright: a patent on an invention an employee makes in the course of their duties belongs to the employer automatically (Patent Act B.E. 2522, Section 11), but copyright in a work an employee creates belongs to the employee - the employer only gets a right to publish it for the purpose of the employment (Copyright Act B.E. 2537, Section 9). It gets more complicated still when the work is commissioned from a freelancer or an outside firm, because the rule flips again compared to a regular employee (Section 10). A business with no written agreement fixing ownership in advance may find it doesn't actually own the IP it paid to have created.

Patents: An Employee's Invention Belongs to the Employer by Law

Patent Act B.E. 2522, Section 11 provides that an invention an employee makes under an employment contract whose purpose is to produce inventions, or in the course of their job duties, has its rights vest in the employer automatically, unless the employment contract states otherwise. This also covers cases where the employee uses data, statistics, or reports they can access because of their employment, even if the employment contract itself has nothing to do with inventing. Put simply: the law treats an employee as hired to create value for the business, so the output of that work belongs to the business, not the individual.

Special Remuneration: An Employee-Inventor's Right

To be fair to employees, Section 12 provides that if the employer benefits from the invention or puts it to commercial use, the employee has the right to "special remuneration" from the employer, on top of their regular salary. The law does not fix a set formula for the amount, so this is often something to negotiate or to set out in advance in company policy, to reduce disputes later.

Copyright: An Employee's Work Belongs to the Employee, Not the Employer

The complete opposite of patents. Copyright Act B.E. 2537, Section 9 provides that for a work a creator makes in their capacity as an employee, if there is no written agreement stating otherwise, copyright in that work belongs to the creator - the employee themselves. The employer only gets "the right to publish that work to the public for the purpose of the employment" - not full copyright ownership. This is where many businesses get it wrong, especially businesses with in-house designers, graphic artists, developers, or marketing content creators. Without an employment contract that clearly addresses copyright ownership, an employee may genuinely still hold rights in work they created on the job, even though the company pays their salary.

But for a Contractor or Freelancer, the Rule Flips Again

Adding to the confusion: when the work isn't made by a regular employee but is commissioned from an outside party - a freelancer, an agency, an independent developer - Section 10 of the Copyright Act sets a rule that's the opposite of Section 9. Work created under a commission belongs, by copyright, to the hirer, unless the parties agree otherwise. Put another way: hire an "employee," copyright starts with the employee; hire a "freelancer or independent contractor," copyright starts with the hirer - a completely flipped default, depending on whether the legal relationship between the two parties is an employment relationship or a commissioning relationship.

Summary Comparison

What Businesses Should Do to Avoid Confusion and Disputes

Frequently Asked Questions

We hired a freelancer to design our company logo. Who owns the copyright?

Under Section 10 of the Copyright Act B.E. 2537, for commissioned work (not an employment relationship), the law gives the hirer copyright ownership by default, unless the parties agree otherwise. Even so, you should always have a written agreement stating this clearly, to prevent disputes later over usage scope or revisions.

An employee invents something in their own time, unrelated to their job duties. Does the employer still own the patent?

Section 11 applies to inventions an employee makes in the course of their duties, or using information or resources they can access because of their employment. If an invention genuinely has nothing to do with the employee's job and doesn't use the employer's information or resources at all, it may in principle fall outside Section 11 - but this is a fact-specific question that must be assessed case by case. Consult a professional to evaluate your specific situation before concluding either way.

Tavich Taweewatanapan
Reviewed by Tavich TaweewatanapanCompany Director and Registered Patent Agent · Reviewed 2026-08-24