Expert Absent, Hearing on Copyright Law Delayed Again

Chief Justice Anwar Usman and Chief Registrar Muhidin at the judicial review hearing of Law No. 28 of 2014 on Copyright, Wednesday (9/14/2022). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

Wednesday, September 14, 2022 | 15:48 WIB

JAKARTA (MKRI)—The Constitutional Court (MK) held another judicial review hearing of Law No. 28 of 2014 on Copyright on Wednesday, September 14, 2022 in the plenary courtroom. The thirteenth hearing for case No. 63/PUU-XIX/2021, filed by PT Musica Studios, had been scheduled to hear an expert for Satriyo Yudo Wahono/Piyu Padi (Relevant Party). However, based on the Registrar’s Office’s report and Piyu’s legal counsel, Khrisna Kuncahyo Winardi, the expert was absent.

“Our expert is indisposed. So, in order to expedite the proceedings, we’d like to cancel the expert’s testimony,” Khrisna said in the plenary hearing presided over by Chief Justice Anwar Usman and the other eight constitutional justices.

Before concluding the session, Justice Anwar announced that the next hearing would commence on Tuesday, September 27 at 11:00 WIB to hear three witnesses for the Federation of Indonesian Musicians' Unions (FESMI).

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

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

Expert Unprepared, Govt Requests Hearing on Copyright Law Delayed 

Moral Rights Belong to Creator Indefinitely 

Expert’s Testimony Delayed, Hearing on Copyright Law Postponed 

Copyright Belongs Exclusively to Creator’s Creativity

Expert Unprepared, Witness Pulls Out, Hearing on Copyright Law Postponed

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 9/15/2022 09:13 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.

Wednesday, September 14, 2022 | 15:48 WIB 31