The judicial review hearing of Law No. 28 of 2014 on Copyright to hear witnesses for the Relevant Party, Tuesday (9/27/2022). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
Tuesday, September 27, 2022 | 17:25 WIB
JAKARTA (MKRI)—Dharma Oratmangun dan Eko Sutrisno testified for the Relevant Party, the Indonesian Musicians Union Federation (FESMI), at the judicial review hearing of Law No. 28 of 2014 on Copyright on Tuesday, September 27, 2022 in the plenary courtroom. The fourteenth hearing for case No. 63/PUU-XIX/2021, filed by PT Musica Studios, was to hear the Relevant Party’s witnesses: Fesmi, the Dangdut-Malay Music Performers Association (PAMMI), ARDI, RAI, Puji Rahaesita, and others.
Oratmangun revealed his experience as a songwriter in the 1980s to 2000s. He recalled that at the time, he often had to work without any agreement. He had even signed on to a job on a scrap of receipt, without any royalties. This, he said, was what he then knew as an outright buyout agreement.
“In that position between a rock and a hard place, copyright owners had no choice but to sign such agreements or receipts. This went on for years,” he said virtually.
In the 1980s, he added, several musicians founded the Association of Artists, Singers, Songwriters, and Musicians of the Republic of Indonesia (PAPPRI) as a forum for copyright owners to stake their claim in the music industry. He recalled that in the 1980s, he received only Rp150,000-250,000 per song. He once received an award at a national song festival in 1989–1990 for the song Aku Suka Kamu Suka, but he never received any royalties for the work. He felt he could not rely on such meagre pay, but he continued working because he believed in his God-given talent.
“Through [my] works and taxes, I could contribute to the country and provide work for many. Therefore, the latest Copyright Law has given a lot of protection to our constitutional rights. It has provided justice so that copyright owners’ constitutional rights are protected. Thus, [I] plead to the constitutional justices not to grant the petition,” he said.
No Choice
Eko Saky or Eko Sutrisno, the songwriter of dangdut song Jatuh Bangun popularized by singer Kristina, lamented his career. He received an award from a private TV station for his work as a songwriter. However, he said, he felt ashamed of his big name in the music industry because he actually did not receive any compensation from that work. He spent decades living in hardship. He asked for compensation for his work numerous times but the company turned him down, saying it did not sell.
He revealed that in the 1990s, he received only Rp75,000 per written song, which was written on a receipt. When he did enter a contract, the clauses did not favor songwriters, who did not have any choice but to comply. They would not earn anything otherwise. He said that he had just received a call from a company, who wanted to give him royalties amounting to Rp417,000.
“For years and years I didn’t receive any royalties. [When I did], I had to split it in halves. This is inhumane. For decades we acted as if we were milking cows. [I] hope the constitutional justices did not grant the petition. It is okay that I couldn’t enjoy my rights, but I hope my children and grandchildren can enjoy my works. [Songwriters] are the driving force of the music industry, but we have no power,” he said before Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto and seven other 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
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
Moral Rights Belong to Creator Indefinitely
Expert’s Testimony Delayed, Hearing on Copyright Law Postponed
Copyright Belongs Exclusively to Creator’s Creativity
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 10/13/2022 13:43 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, September 27, 2022 | 17:25 WIB 158