House: Creator Should Have Received Great Economic Benefits
Image

The material judicial review hearing of Law No. 28 of 2014 on Copyright to her the Government and the House, Monday (3/14/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.


Monday, March 14, 2022 | 16:20 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—Initially, copyright was a private right that was regulated by the state by providing protection and stimulus for copyright owners. The copyright includes moral rights that protect the personal value, reputation, and creation of the creator, as well as economic rights in the form of exclusive rights to the creation.

Such was the testimony of House of Representatives (DPR) member Supriansa at a judicial review hearing of Law No. 28 of 2014 on Copyright in the plenary courtroom of the Constitutional Court (MK) on Monday, March 14, 2022. The case No. 63/PUU-XIX/2021 was filed by PT Musica Studios, who argues that Article 18, Article 30, and Article 122 of the Copyright Law violate Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28H paragraph (4), and Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

He further said that economic benefits can be obtained from the work of a creator through duplicating, translating, transforming, distributing, performing, publishing, communicating, and leasing creations. Based on this, creators should receive a lot of economic benefits. However, in practice, creators have not obtained these rights optimally, so the state needs to regulate these exclusive rights for the sake of justice for many parties.

“The definition of outright buyout in the a quo law is no other than to create a balance for the parties involved in the national creative world. The 25-year use is based on the illustration of the life expectancy of Indonesians according to [the Central Statistics Agency (BPS)] data. For example, a person creates a song when he is 25 years old, then 25 years later when he is 50 years old, he will be able to enjoy the copyright of his work again,” he added.

National Creativity Development

Supriansa then said that any change to this norm was an effort by the state in developing national creativity. The denial of economic and moral rights, he added, could eliminate motivation, resulting in the collapse of the nation’s generations’ creative spirit. Hopefully the a quo law means that there will be better protection for copyright owners, including restriction over the transfer of economic rights in the form of outright buyouts, as well as more attention to the interests of creators, copyright holders, and owners of relevant rights.

He also explained that the drafting of the a quo law had gone through a theoretical study and empirical practice, which included a discussion of copyright on the development of information technology, which was deemed necessary for developing protection for the rights of creators, copyright holders, and owners of relevant rights. 

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

Intellectual Rights

At the same session, Min Usihen Ginting as Expert Staff of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights for Social Affairs representing the President conveyed a statement that moral rights were given to a creator. It is the creator who has control through the use of his work because moral rights are also an acknowledgment of the rights of others to their intellectual works and cannot be judged by material or money. 

Also read: PT Musica Studios Reduces Copyright Law Articles to Review 

The case No. 63/PUU-XIX/2021 was filed by PT Musica Studios. 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.

Article 18 of the Copyright Law reads, “The Works of books, and/or all other written works, songs and/or music with or without text that are transferred in a flat fee agreement and/or indefinite transfers, are to be reverted to the Author when the agreement reaches a period of 25 (twenty-five) years.” Article 30 of the Copyright Law reads, “The economic rights to a Performer’s Work of songs and/or music that have been transferred and/or sold, return to the Performer after a period of 25 (twenty-five) years.”

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 copyright duration 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 have a status as a leaser and will have to return the right some time to the creator of the work.

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. Therefore, 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 3/15/2022 08:27 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.


Monday, March 14, 2022 | 16:20 WIB 286