Judgment of the Central Intellectual Property
and International Trade Court

Copyright Act of B.E.2521, Sections 4, 13, 15

Copyright Act of B.E.2537, Section 6, 15, 17

At the time plaintiff created work in 1992, the Copyright Act of 1994 was not yet enforced. In considering whether the plaintiff’s work owns copyright must be done in accordance with the Copyright Act of 1978 which is enforced at that time. Both defendants cannot raise Section 6, paragraph 2 of the Copyright Act of 1994, stipulating that the protection of copyright does not include mathematics theories, which is not stipulated in the Copyright Act of 1978 against plaintiff.

Although the Copyright Act of 1978 did not stipulate that the protection of copyright does not include mathematics theories as in the Copyright Act of 1994, Section 6, paragraph 2, but when considered the term “author” and “work” under Section 4 of the Copyright Act of 1978 stipulating that the works which copyright are protected must be works made or created by his/her own idea. This shows that copyright works must be works that has an “expression of idea”, the idea is not protected by copyright law. Mathematics theories are merely ideas used in calculation, and is not an expression of idea which will be protected by copyright law.

The work in dispute is a textbook for faster calculation for Primary 1-6. It is an exercise and test book to help understanding and mathematics skills, therefore it shows an expression of idea which the copyright will be protected, not just mathematics theories without copyright protection. The work is also created by of the plaintiff.Therefore, it is a literary work under Section 4, paragraph 4 of the Copyright Act of 1978.

The name of the agreement alone cannot be used to judge the type of agreement. It must be supported by the contents of the agreement. Although plaintiff entered into an agreement to sell the work in dispute to the first defendant, but the contents of the agreement shows that plaintiff allows the first defendant to print and distribute 3,000 copies per one title and the first defendant pays a royalty fee of 10% of the cover price. This shows that the plaintiff allows the first defendant to print 3,000 copies for each title by paying consideration of 10% of the cover price of the book for each printing. Therefore, the agreement between plaintiff and first

defendant is an agreement allowing others to use right in printing and distributing books, not a purchase of copyright which involves a transfer of copyright in accordance with the name of the agreement.

The amendment to the wordings and marks which have minor mistakes in printing in the textbook is not an amendment for the substantial past which will be an adaption under Section 4 of the Copyright Act of 1978 which is the law enforced at the time the amendment was made.