Recommendations on the Copyright Bill

Indonesia’s Copyright Bill: What‘s Recommended and What It Means for You

Indonesia’s 2014 Copyright Law brought the national framework closer to international standards under the Berne Convention, TRIPS, WCT, and WPPT. However, the rapid rise of digitalisation, media convergence, user-generated content platforms, OTT streaming services, generative AI, and text and data mining has fundamentally changed how creative works are produced, distributed, and monetised; developments the current statute no longer fully addresses.

These developments, coupled with Constitutional Court rulings in landmark cases, have highlighted the need for reform, particularly in areas such as outright sale norms, rights reversion, and platform responsibilities.

Indonesia’s government is drafting the new Copyright Bill, IP experts have been invited to share their recommendations.  Here we share some of the key concerns being discussed, which include:

1. Exclusive Rights: Back to Two Core Economic Rights

2. Authorship: Human Creativity First; Clear Work‑for‑Hire Defaults

3. AI and TDM: Tool, Not Author; Licensing for Commercial Training

4. Scope of “Works”: Simplify Categories

5. Freedom of Panorama: Explicit, Limited, and Practical

6. Recordation: Prima Facie; Fast, Low‑Cost Corrections

7. Royalty Governance & Platforms: ECL with Data Standards

Number 1

Exclusive Rights: Back to Two Core Economic Rights

Returning to two broad, technology-neutral rights; reproduction and communication/publication, with detailed sub-acts (translation, adaptation, distribution, performance, broadcasting, communication to the public, making available, rental) placed in the explanatory notes or implementing regulations. This avoids a reactive list that quickly dates, and ensures the law can absorb new business models without constant amendments. All exceptions would be organized under a single Berne/TRIPS three‑step test clause (limited to clearly defined special cases, not conflicting with the normal exploitation of the work, and unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author).

Implication: More predictable examination and enforcement; fewer grey areas for digital services and cross-border licensing; simpler contract drafting that maps to recognized right families.

Number 2

Authorship: Human Creativity First; Clear Work‑for‑Hire Defaults

Affirming that the author is a natural person (not a company), and to adopt the EU-style “free and creative choices” standard for originality. Clear work-for-hire defaults (for employment and commissioned works), in particular that legal entities may become copyright holders by agreement and are not treated as authors.

Implication: Certainty in copyright ownership and recognition of authors’ rights; fewer portfolio gaps in transactions and financings; reduced disputes between authors and corporate rights holders.

Number 3

AI and TDM: Tool, Not Author; Licensing for Commercial Training

AI is a tool, not an author. Protection for AI‑assisted works should depend on identifiable, substantial human creative contribution. For large‑scale commercial AI training, Text & Data Mining – TDM – licensing, limited exceptions for non‑commercial research, and optional collective licensing for scale.

Implication: Certainty for platforms and developers; a clearer path to lawful dataset use; protection of authors’ moral and economic interests in training data.

Number 4

Scope of “Works”: Simplify Categories; Special Treatment for Traditional Culture

Grouping works into Berne‑aligned macro categories (literary, musical, visual, audiovisual, software/database, architecture) and placing fast‑moving forms (games, AR/VR, NFTs) in guidance or regulations. It also urges a sui generis/communal regime for traditional cultural expressions (EBT), with prior informed consent and benefit‑sharing, rather than forcing them into individual copyright.

Implication: Adaptive coverage for new formats; better protection for communities and clearer rules for derivative creativity (fashion, choreography, arrangements) based on traditional motifs.

Number 5

Freedom of Panorama: Explicit, Limited, and Practical

To reduce uncertainty around photography/design use of permanent public artworks or architecture (e.g., landmark disputes), an explicit freedom of panorama: documentation, news, location promotion, and other “reasonable uses” without permission, provided they don’t substantially copy specific protected expressions or conflict with normal exploitation; major commercial uses (e.g., as a key branding element or a trademark) should still require clearance.

Implication: Clearer creative freedom for photographers, advertisers, and brands, and fewer disputes over public landmarks in campaigns or packaging.

Number 6

Recordation: Prima Facie; Fast, Low‑Cost Corrections

Treat copyright recordation as prima facie evidence (rather than a constitutive requirement or conclusive proof of rights), and establishing a Copyright Commission (quasi‑judicial within DGIP) to handle objections, corrections, and deletions electronically and inexpensively; with appeals to the Commercial Court. It also recommends a single integrated register for works, licenses, and certain commercialization data, and joint guidance across DGIP, Customs, Police, and Prosecutors to prevent misuse of certificates.

Implication: Efficient portfolio maintenance; better evidence quality in civil/criminal matters; lower compliance cost and fewer bad‑faith recordations clogging the system.

Number 7

Royalty Governance & Platforms: ECL with Data Standards; Safe Harbour + Due Diligence

For public performance of music, Extended Collective Licensing (ECL) at the statutory level, with LMK as operators and LMKN as coordinator and/or supervisor. In this role, LMKN would set minimum standards; covering tariffs, data logging, distribution, and audits, and enable a “single account” model (pay once, comply once) through LMK consortia.

For digital platforms, a safe harbour regime is recommended, accompanied by specific obligations such as effective notice-and-takedown or staydown mechanisms, proportionate content recognition, and cooperation on royalty and data sharing, rather than imposing strict liability for all user-generated content.

Implication: More transparent, data‑driven royalty flows; predictable compliance for hotels, F&B, retail, OTT/UGC; innovation preserved while curbing repeat infringement at scale.

Why This Matters

• Legal certainty & EODB: Technology‑neutral rights, unified exceptions, and prima facie recordation reduce ambiguity, speed transactions, and cut enforcement noise; directly improving ease of doing business in Indonesia.
• Transaction‑ready portfolios: Clear work‑for‑hire defaults and authorship rules produce cleaner chain‑of‑title for M&A, financing, licensing, and cross‑border deals.
• Digital compliance at scale: Safe harbour + due diligence gives platforms and brands concrete steps to stay compliant without throttling growth; statutory damages and staydown procedures modernize enforcement in the online environment.
• AI strategy clarity: Licensing pathways for TDM and human‑creativity thresholds protect authors while enabling AI commercialization; critical for media, software, and data‑rich sectors.
• Cultural alignment: A communal approach to traditional culture supports ESG and community relations, avoiding misappropriation controversies while enabling lawful derivative works.

Final Takeaways and Insights

It is hoped that the new law will accommodate:

1. Returning to strong and simple core norms of exclusive rights.

Economic rights should be formulated primarily as the rights of communication to the public and reproduction, defined broadly and in a technology-neutral manner. Limitations and exceptions must be clearly framed within the three-step test to ensure legal certainty while maintaining flexibility for evolving digital business models.

2. Authors remain human; AI and legal entities are not authors.

The criteria of labour, skill, and free and creative choice must be clearly articulated to determine who qualifies as an Author, particularly in collaborative works, architecture, music, and AI-assisted creations. AI systems and legal entities should be positioned as tools or rights holders, not as subjects of authorship.

3. Definitions and categories of protected works must be adaptive and aligned with international standards.

Core categories of protected works should follow the framework of the Berne Convention, while traditional cultural expressions, intangible cultural heritage, and genetic resources should be governed under separate, specialized regimes. The Copyright Law should also explicitly regulate freedom of panorama for permanent works located in public spaces, with clear limitations on commercial use.

4. Copyright recordation must be rationalized to strengthen legal certainty and ease of doing business.

Recordation should function as prima facie evidence, not as a prerequisite for the recognition of rights. Fast, affordable, and electronic mechanisms should be established to correct or remove problematic records through a Copyright Commission or a quasi-judicial body, ensuring that certificates of recordation are no longer treated as absolute shields.

5. Royalty management and digital platform regulation must be sector-specific, transparent, and data-driven.

Collective Management Organizations (LMKs) should serve as the primary operational drivers, with LMKN acting as coordinator and supervisor. Ideally, businesses should “pay once, comply once” through a single-account scheme supported by an LMK consortium and transparent digital systems. Digital platforms should be subject to robust due diligence obligations, while remaining protected under safe-harbour principles to preserve an innovation-friendly environment.

6. The new Copyright Law must be legitimate, comprehensive, and sustainable.

The following key points arre further emphasized:

a) The importance of broad public consultation
Copyright law directly affects the creative ecosystem, education, research, MSMEs, traditional arts communities, cultural institutions, digital platforms, and AI developers. Accordingly, it’s recommended that the legislative process actively involve creative communities, academics, educators, LMKs/LMKN, OTT/UGC platform operators, MSMEs, and professional associations to ensure both regulatory quality and legitimacy.

b) The importance of clarity on the relationship between copyright and other IP regimes
The law should provide explicit guidance on the intersections between copyright and other IP regimes – Industrial Designs, Trademarks, Patents, and Trade Secrets—given the many objects subject to overlapping protection (e.g., logos, UI/UX, packaging designs, 3D characters, visual motifs, and software). A clear articulation of the lex specialis principle is essential to avoid overlapping authority and enforcement uncertainty.

c) The importance of detailed regulation through implementing regulations
As the law should focus on general and conceptual matters, the bill must allow sufficient room for detailed regulation through implementing regulations. This approach will ensure legal certainty while enabling the framework to adapt efficiently to technological and societal developments over time.

Looking Ahead

As Indonesia moves toward a more modern copyright framework, SKC Law remains committed to guiding businesses, authors, and platforms through these changes.

Get in touch via enquiries@skclaw.id or follow us on LinkedIn for updates on IP in Indonesia.

Submit a custom inquiry via our Contact Page.

“This content is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice on specific matters, contact enquiries@skclaw.id.”