Are you argumentative for the sake of being obnoxious?
First you objected when it was pointed out that the Swedish drone operator could not claim ignorance of the possibility of regulations since there are regulations in his homeland that apply to personal privacy, particularly when used for commercial purposes. Now you are back to change your objection from a Swedish basis to a Thai basis. You are like a gnat that won’t go away.
Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) of Thailand (PDPA)
“Personal Data” is broadly defined as any information relating to a person, which enables the identification of such person, whether directly or indirectly, but not including the information of deceased persons in particular. The use of a person’s image meets these criteria. The law states that Specific consent is required from the data subject to use that information.
Do you deny the existence of this law?
Do you deny that an image can be used to identify a person?
The Thailand Civil Code has 2 relevant sections;
Section 420. Liability for Wrongful Acts: A person who, willfully or negligently, unlawfully injures the life, body, health, liberty, property or any right of another person, is said to commit a wrongful act and is responsible for compensation
Section 421. Self Defense: The exercise of a right which can only have the purpose of causing injury to another person is unlawful.
These two sections make clear that if a person infringes on the rights of someone else or causes them injury, they are liable. Section 421 is direct in stating that while someone may have the right to take photographs, if the other party is injured, then it is an unlawful act. The use of photos without permission of the subject can give rise to personal injury and is therefore subject to the protections of the civil code.