The Petitioner’s legal counsel Otto Hasibuan conveying the revisions to the petition virtually at the judicial review hearing of Law No. 28 of 2014 on Copyright, Thursday (1/13/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

Thursday, January 13, 2022 | 16:19 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) held another judicial review hearing of Law No. 28 of 2014 on Copyright on Thursday, January 13, 2022 in the plenary courtroom. The case No. 63/PUU-XIX/2021 was filed by PT Musica Studios, represented by legal counsel Otto Hasibuan.

At the second hearing, the Petitioner through their counsel conveyed the revisions to the petition, which included the Petitioner’s profile, the Court’s jurisdiction—where the latest Constitutional Court Law had been added, the Petitioner’s constitutional rights as guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution, and the Petitioner’s potential constitutional impairment.

“In addition, in the posita, we do not include Article 63 paragraph (1) letter b, so the article is not petitioned,” Hasibuan said before Constitutional Justices Wahiduddin Adams (chair), Arief Hidayat, and Enny Nurbaningsih.

Also read: PT Musica Studios Questions Duration of Economic Rights in Copyright Law

The Petitioner challenges Article 18, Article 30, and Article 122 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.

At the preliminary hearing on Monday, December 13, 2021, through legal counsel Otto Hasibuan the Petitioner argued that the copyright they meant was economic right. They 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.

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.

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

Translation uploaded on 01/14/2022 12:28 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.

---