Chief Justice Anwar Usman opening the material judicial review hearing of Law No. 28 of 2014 on Copyright, Monday (3/21/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.
Tuesday, March 22, 2022 | 10:53 WIB
JAKARTA, Public Relations—Law No. 28 of 2014 on Copyright—including Article 18, which regulates the term limit of grant of copyright transfer—is the Government’s protection for songwriters and performers as part of the Indonesian intellectual property, said Khrisna Kuncahyo Winardi, the legal counsel of Relevant Party Satrio Yudi Wahono, known by the public as Piyu of the band PADI, at a material judicial review hearing of the Copyright Law on Monday, March 21, 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.
Khrisna asserted that Article 18 of the Copyright Law did not restrict the Relevant Party as a songwriter, who said that the existing provision on the outright buyout/sold flat without term limit has been detrimental for songwriters and performers.
“In fact, the enactment of the provisions of the a quo articles does not at all hinder the Petitioner’s rights as a citizen in receiving fair treatment in law. For example, the Petitioner can still make an agreement on the transfer of economic rights with the songwriter, as long as the agreement is not outright buyout or sold flat. The a quo articles actually strengthen guarantee and protection for all Indonesian people,” he said.
Also read: PT Musica Studios Questions Duration of Economic Rights in Copyright Law
On behalf of Piyu, Khrisna explained that in formulating and implementing the contents of the agreement, all parties must pay attention to the interest of all parties, including equal treatment in fulfilling the rights and obligations of each party. He said the imbalance that put record companies in a higher position than songwriters led to unequal bargaining positions.
He believes that a sold flat agreement, which grants copyright of songs to record labels without any term limit, shows songwriters’ low bargaining position. Songwriters barely have freedom from record labels in negotiating terms of the agreement.
“The transfer of economic rights of the song should not be forever or indefinitely, but only for a certain duration. The songwriters’ weak bargaining position is exploited by record companies, leading to abuse of the conditions in the agreement,” Khrisna said.
Also read: PT Musica Studios Reduces Copyright Law Articles to Review
Producers’ Rights Violated
Meanwhile, the Association of Indonesian Record Producers (Asprindo) offered a contrasting testimony. On behalf of the association, Leo Famli asserted that Article 63 paragraph (1) letter b of the Copyright Law prohibits other parties from exploiting phonograms without permission because there is exploitation right to a phonogram since creation lasts until 50 years and indefinitely. However, Articles 18 and 122 of the Copyright Law have violated the rights of Asprindo that are guaranteed in the law, as the copyright of a song and/or music with or without text is an inseparable part of the Petitioner’s or the Relevant Party’s phonogram. He also asserted that if the copyright to the phonogram is returned to the songwriter, Asprindo cannot obtain royalties from the phonogram’s exploitation by any party.
“In other words, the phonogram becomes a dead capital. On the other hand, Article 30 paragraph (1) letter b of the Copyright Law guarantees the rights of the Relevant Party to exploit the phonogram indefinitely and to also enjoy the phonogram’s economic rights for 50 years since the phonogram is fixed,” Leo explained before Chief Justice Anwar Usman and the other eight constitutional justices.
Leo then explained that before the Copyright Law was enacted, if the Relevant Party and a performer enter into a sold flat agreement, the economic rights of the work is transferred from the performer to the Relevant Party. Thus, the economic rights now belong to the Relevant Party indefinitely.
“In conclusion, the Relevant Party’s business activities relating to economic rights will suffer a great loss, both constitutionally and materially, if the Petitioner’s judicial review petition of Law No. 28 of 2014 on Copyright against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia is not granted,” said Leo, who appeared before the Court virtually.
Also read: House: Creator Should Have Received Great Economic Benefits
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 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.
They 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 : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : Tiara Agustina
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 3/23/2022 09:39 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.
Tuesday, March 22, 2022 | 10:53 WIB 340