The judicial review hearing of Law No. 28 of 2014 on Copyright, Tuesday (6/21/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.
Tuesday, June 21, 2022 | 14:31 WIB
JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) held another judicial review hearing of Law No. 28 of 2014 on Copyright on Tuesday, June 21, 2022. The hearing for case No. 63/PUU-XIX/2021, filed by PT Musica Studios, took place in the plenary courtroom and was presided over by Chief Justice Anwar Usman and the other eight constitutional justices.
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
The government requested that the hearing be postponed. “Today’s hearing was supposed to hear testimonies from two experts for the Government/president, but the Court received a letter requesting the delay of the hearing. Thus, the hearing is postponed until Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 11:00 WIB to hear testimonies from two experts for the president. It should be noted that the experts’ resumes and written testimonies must be submitted to the Registrar’s Office at least two days before the hearing,” Chief Justice Anwar Usman said.
Also read:
Piyu PADI: Provision on Copyright Duration Protects Songwriters
Copyright in the Eye of Musicians
Marcell Siahaan: Copyright Law Protects Creators and Performers
Flat Fee Agreements in the Eyes of Legal Expert and Music Industry Professionals
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.
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.
Writer : Sri Pujianti
Editor : Nur R.
PR : Tiara Agustina
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 6/23/2022 11:13 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, June 21, 2022 | 14:31 WIB 202