Bangkok Legal Service

Article 7 provides for the following options: either Option A or Option B. Mr. Tawan Silapan painted a painting depicting a literary heroine, which was uniquely beautiful and possessed no precedent of such splendor. Mr. Tawan signed his name in the lower left corner of the painting. Mr. Pullan purchased the painting from Mr. Tawan. Subsequently, Mr. Jan secretly used a camera to photograph the painting, which was located in Mr. Pullan’s house, and then sold postcards based on it. The actions of Mr. Pullan and Mr. Jan constitute a breach of copyright and the postcard is the property of whom? Mr. Tawan is the creator of the painting, therefore he is the copyright holder. Mr. Pullan’s purchase of the painting, removal of Mr. Tawan’s name from the painting, and writing of a new caption does not constitute a modification of Mr. Tawan’s copyrightable work, and therefore does not grant him copyright under the Copyright Act B.E. 2537, Section 27, but rather designates him as the creator in order to demonstrate that he is the creator of the work, according to the Copyright Act B.E. 2537, Section 18. (5 points) Mr. Jan photographed the painting for the purpose of producing postcards, with the permission of the copyright holder, Mr. Tawan, which constitutes a repetition of a copyrighted work, under the Copyright Act, which is a violation of Section 69 of the Copyright Act B.E. 2537, Section 27, and the postcard is owned by Mr. Tawan, the copyright holder, under the Copyright Act B.E. 2537, Section 75. (5 points) On April 1, 2547, Thai Coal Co., Ltd. executed an employment contract. Mr. JP Co., Ltd., a marine cargo transport business, was commissioned to transport coal worth 3 million baht by ship JP1, to Japan, in 3 containers, with a value of goods, departing from the Bangkok Port on May 1, 2547. The other two containers, 1 will be transported by ship JP2, departing from the Bangkok Port on May 10, 2547. On April 25, 2547, Thai Coal Co., Ltd. delivered coal, which is a hazardous material, packed in cardboard boxes, 30d group, to Mr. JP Co., Ltd. for loading into the containers, totaling 3 containers. The boxes displayed only the name and trademark of Thai Coal Co., Ltd. and the name of the 3d boxes were purchased in Japan only, without any symbols of fire or symbols indicating hazardous goods affixed. The consignor did not inform Mr. JP Co., Ltd. of the hazardous nature of the goods. Upon loading the goods into the containers, Mr. JP Co., Ltd. transported the containers to the ship JP1 and to the ship JP2, placing them together with other general goods. After the JP1 ship departed for 3 days, while the JP1 ship was in the middle of the sea, the coal ignited, spreading to other containers, causing damage amounting to 5 million baht. Captain of the JP1 ship inspected that the cause of the fire was due to the failure to place the containers containing coal in a designated area for hazardous goods, so the captain of the JP1 ship promptly notified Mr. JP Co., Ltd. that the company’s goods, which may pose a hazard, should be moved to the area for hazardous goods, but the company refused, as it was nearing the departure date of the JP2 ship. After the JP2 ship departed as scheduled, 3 days later, a fire broke out in the coal containers on both ships and spread to other goods, amounting to a damage value of 10 million baht. Mr. JP Co., Ltd. sought to claim damages amounting to 15 million baht for the damage on both ships, and to claim the value of the coal that burned, amounting to 3 million baht. Both companies must be liable under the regulations governing marine cargo transport.

Option A: Thai Coal Co., Ltd. owned the hazardous coal as a thing with a dangerous nature, without properly marking or labeling it to indicate that it was hazardous. Even when it was delivered, it did not inform Mr. JP Co., Ltd., the carrier, of the hazardous nature of the goods. When damage occurred, Thai Coal Co., Ltd. under the Marine Cargo Transport Act B.E. 2534, but Thai Coal Co., Ltd. can only claim damages that occurred on the JP1 ship, amounting to million baht, and cannot claim damages on the JP2 ship. (2 points)

Option B: Mr. JP Co., Ltd. has (4 points)