The constitutional justices entering the courtroom to hear the Relevant Parties at the judicial review hearing of Law No. 28 of 2014 on Copyright, Wednesday (4/13/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.
Wednesday, April 13, 2022 | 22:58 WIB
JAKARTA, Public Relations—Moral and economic rights in copyright is inseparable and belong to the creator. So, in discussing copyright, they cannot be separated from one another, said Panji Prasetyo, the legal counsel of the Relevant Parties—the Indonesian Musicians Union Federation (FESMI), the Dangdut-Malay Music Performers Association (PAMMI), the Indonesian Dangdut Award (ADI) Association, and the Indonesian Royalties Association (RAI)—at the fifth judicial review hearing of Law No. 28 of 2014 on Copyright on Wednesday, April 13, 2022 in the Constitutional Court (MK).
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.
Panji added that Article 16 paragraph (2) letter e of the Copyright Law stipulates that economic rights may be obtained through a written license agreement, which cannot be used to remove or take over the creator’s entire right of the work, pursuant to Article 82 paragraph (3) of the Copyright Law.
The duration of copyright protection is stipulated in Article 58. It endures for a term consisting of the life of the creator and 70 years after their death. The protection of the phonogram producer’s economic right is also limited to 50 years after it is fixed. Thus, Panji explained, there is restriction to the duration of copyright protection, including for the creator, meaning that the concept of absolute ownership of copyright is highly irrelevant.
“Based on this, economic rights to a work are an exclusive right attached to the author in principle, so other parties can only take advantage of that right temporarily and only by the creator’s permission, which according to the provisions of copyright can only be done through a license agreement. Due to the exclusive nature, economic rights can only be transferred temporarily and other parties cannot have absolute ownership of the copyright,” Panji explained.
Protection of Creator’s Rights
Meanwhile, Sawitri Anggraini, who represented Indra Lesmana and Ikang Fawzi (Relevant Parties), said that Articles 18, 30, and 122 of the Copyright Law did not conflict with Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution and have created certainty in the equality between the creators, performers, and producers of phonograms. Indra Lesmana, who has been creating works since the 1980s, felt very protected by the restrictions on buyouts in protecting the rights of his creations. In fact, he believed the absence of provisions on the return of economic rights from buyout agreements or indefinite agreements would allow label companies to exploit the economic rights of the Relevant Parties and obtain profits that were disproportionate to the advance payments to the Relevant Parties.
“And the abolition of the provisions of Article 18, Article 30, and Article 122 of the Copyright Law as requested by the Petitioners would actually eliminate the protection that creators and performers expect would end the unfair and exploratory practice of transferring economic rights,” Sawitri explained.
Also read:
PT Musica Studios Questions Duration of Economic Rights in Copyright Law
PT Musica Studios Reduces Copyright Law Articles to Review
House: Creator Should Have Received Great Economic Benefits
Piyu PADI: Provision on Copyright Duration Protects Songwriters
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.”
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0CzZm3zMiI
Writer : Sri Pujianti
Editor : Nur R.
PR : Tiara Agustina
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 4/18/2022 03:06 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.
Wednesday, April 13, 2022 | 22:58 WIB 532