Panel of justices entering the courtroom for the preliminary hearing of the judicial review of the Copyright Law for case No. 63/PUU-XIX/2021, Monday (12/13/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Ilham W.M.

---

Monday, December 13, 2021 | 16:35 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) held a preliminary hearing for the judicial review of Law No. 28 of 2014 on Copyright on Monday, December 13, 2021 in the plenary courtroom. The case No. 63/PUU-XIX/2021 was filed by PT Musica Studios, which was represented by legal counsel Otto Hasibuan at the hearing.

The Petitioner challenged Article 18, Article 30, Article 122, and Article 63 paragraph (1) letter b of the Copyright Law. They argued that those articles violate Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28H paragraph (4), and Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

The Petitioner argued that Article 18 of the Copyright Law had harmed their economic rights of works on which outright buyout agreement applies.

“The article stipulates a limit of duration [of copyright] on a work, and the [copyright] shall be returned to the [original] copyright holder after 25 years. The Petitioner believes the provision is detrimental because [they] only has a status as a leaser and will have to return the right some time to the creator of the work,” said Hasibuan virtually before the presiding justices—Constitutional Justices Wahiduddin Adams (panel chair), Arief Hidayat, and Enny Nurbaningsih.

The Petitioner also argued that they lost economic rights due to the enactment of Article 122 of the Copyright Law, because by returning the copyright to the creator, they cannot receive royalties over another party’s exploitation of a phonogram of the work when, in fact, Article 63 paragraph (1) letter b of the Copyright Law guarantees such that the Petitioner as a producer receives economic rights over the exploitation of a phonogram for 50 years since its creation.

In the petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare Articles 18, 30, and 122 of the a quo law unconstitutional and not legally binding; Article 63 paragraph (1) letter b unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as it not be interpreted “for 70 (seventy) years” so that it would read in full: “Protection of Economic Rights for: Producers of Phonogram, endures for 70 (seventy) years since the Phonogram is fixed.”

Justices’ Advice

In response, Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat gave recommendations on the Petitioner’s profile, the Court’s authority, and the Petitioner’s constitutional loss. He advised that not only the Petitioner’s constitutional loss be elaborated, but also that of other parties relevant to this provision.

“Hopefully the argument not only [focuses on] the Petitioner’s interest, but may apply universally,” he added.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih advised the Petitioner on the object of the case, i.e. the norms petitioned for review and the touchstones. She expected that this would clarify the violation of the Petitioner’s constitutional rights as granted by the 1945 Constitution of the enactment of the Copyright Law.

Writer        : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Tiara Agustina
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 12/14/2021 09:42 WIB

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---