---

The DPR’s representative Didik Mukrianto delivered his testimony at judicial review session on Act of Copyright which held on Wednesday (27/5) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ifa

 

 

Copyright limitation on Act Number 28 Year 2014 of Copyright is intended that each individuals and legal entities could use their rights in accordance with the principle of expediency, rather than arbitrarily used. The statement was delivered by the DPR’s representative Didi Mukrianto at the session held on Wednesday (27/5) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building.

"Whereas the provision of Article 51 (1) Act a quo is a limitation on the exclusive rights of copyright holders in certain circumstances, the public interests or national interests are exception and not a violation towards the copyright holder’ interests. With certain requirements, public or national interest take precedence over the interests of copyright holders," he explained in front of Justice Panel led by Deputy Chief Anwar Usman.

He explained, public interest or national interest was basically a certain circumstances, or limiting interest, or exception towards exclusive rights of copyright holders. Due to its nature as a limitation or exception, the consideration of national or public interest could only used in several matters which determined by law.

“National interest could also be used as a defense towards actions involving copyright-protected materials in public disclosure, announcement, distribution, or communication of an invention without permission from its copyright holder used by the Government is not regarded as copyright violation if the national interest requires publishing, distributing, or communicating the material,” he explained.

Meanwhile the Government questioned whether the Applicant was the creator of Priscard used by state-owned insurance company PT. Jamsostek. The Government, represented by Wicipto Setiadi, doubted the Priscard was the Applicant’s invention which had been taken over without permission through PT. Jamsostek.

“Whether the Jamsostek program and the invention made by the Applicant is only a common idea but have different expression which in line with the basic principle of copyright that copyright protect the expression of an idea, rather than the idea itself. Therefore, if two parties have similar idea but express in different way, both inventions are protected and this principle is in line with the provision on Act Number 28 Year 2014 of Copyright,” he explained.

The creator of Priscard, Bernard Samoel Sumarauw explained his constitutional rights had impaired with the enactment of Article 51 (1) Act of Copyright. Article 51 (1) stated ““The Government is able to organize announcements, distribution, or communication of an invention by radio, television and / or other means for the sake of national interest without permission from the Copyright Holder with provisions of compensation provided to the Copyright Holder" (“Pemerintah dapat menyelenggarakan Pengumuman, Pendistribusian, atau Komunikasi atas suatu ciptaan melalui radio, televisi dan/ atau sarana lain untuk kepentingan nasional tanpa izin dari Pemegang Hak Cipta dengan ketentuan wajib memberikan imbalan kepada Pemegang Hak Cipta”). He felt the phrase on Article 51 (1) Act Number 28 Year 2014 which stated “The Government is able to organize of an invention for national interest’ had multiple interpretations because the Government’s invention wasn’t an invention which created and expressed, and embodied in tangible form and no characteristic which automatically based on declarative principle without reducing the limitation in accordance with statutory provisions.

He considered the Article declared the Government’s invention for national interest although it wasn’t required permission from the Applicant; however the Applicant still granted reward. Act of Copyright clearly stated that legislations made and passed by the Justice and Human Rights Department should granted permission from the Applicant, although the Government’s invention for national interest wasn’t stated in the Act a quo. (Lulu Anjarsari/Prasetyo Adi N)

---