Indonesia’s Copyright Law (Law Number 28 of 2014 concerning Copyright) has recently garnered attention from some high-profile musicians. Most recently, a dispute between singer Agnez Mo and songwriter Ari Bias over performance rights (read our article on this issue here), in which the singer was ruled to have infringed upon Ari Bias’ economic rights by performing his song “Bilang Saja” without proper authorization, has sparked debates about the relationship between songwriters and performers in the context of copyright. This has now culminated in 29 prominent Indonesian musicians filing a judicial review of the Copyright Law with the Constitutional Court (registered as 33/PUU/PAN.MK/AP3/03/2025), marking a pivotal moment in the ongoing conversation about Indonesia copyright law and the country’s music industry.
Background
The musicians involved are some of the biggest names in the Indonesian music industry, including Armand Maulana, Ariel NOAH, Vina Panduwinata, Nadin Amizah, Fadly Padi, Andien, Teddy Adhytia, David Bayu, among others. They are members of VISI (Vibrasi Suara Indonesia), a collective movement of Indonesian musicians focused on addressing issues related to fairness in the music industry. It was established to highlight long-standing concerns within the Indonesian music sector, particularly regarding the rights of those involved in music creation and performance.
The Petition
In the petition registered as 33/PUU/PAN.MK/AP3/03/2025, the petitioners have requested a judicial review of Articles 9(3), 23(5), 81, 87(1), and 113(2) of the Indonesian Copyright Law, Law Number 28 of 2014. They primarily highlighted issues with royalty payments and licensing, pointing out that the rulings from Indonesia copyright law regarding these issues often fail to be realized due to inconsistencies in its implementation.
The Petitioners stress on significant legal uncertainty that clouds the industry, particularly due to cases involving disputes between songwriters and performers (e.g., Agnez Mo vs. Ari Bias) that create confusion over licensing and royalty payments. The petitioners contend that these provisions have led to inconsistent interpretations and practices regarding the requirement for direct permission from songwriters, royalty payment obligations, and the potential criminalization of performers for late payments.
The petitioners are asking the Constitutional Court for clarification, urging that the law be revised so performers do not need direct authorization from songwriters, provided royalties are paid. They also propose that the responsibility for royalty payments should lie with event organizers. Furthermore, they argue that songwriters should not have the sole authority to set royalty rates and that criminal sanctions for late royalty payments should be eliminated, as these matters should be treated as civil issues.
Moreover, in the petition document, the petitioners have made the following requests regarding the regulation:
- They request that the Constitutional Court grant the petition in its entirety.
- They request that Article 9, Paragraph 3 of the Indonesia copyright law be declared constitutional, with the interpretation that the commercial use of a work in a performance does not require permission from the creator or copyright holder, provided that royalties are paid for such commercial use.
- They request that Article 23, Paragraph 5 of the Copyright Law be interpreted such that the phrase “any person” is understood to include individuals or legal entities acting as event organizers, unless a different agreement regarding royalty payments has been made between the parties involved.
- They request that provisions be made to regulate royalty payments, which may be made both before and after the commercial use of a work in a performance.
- They request that Article 81 of the Copyright Law be interpreted to mean that works under copyright, when used commercially in a performance, do not require direct licensing from the creator, with the obligation to pay royalties to the creator through Collective Management Organizations (CMOs).
- They request that Article 87, Paragraph 1 of the Copyright Law be declared unconstitutional, unless it is interpreted to prevent creators, copyright holders, or rights owners from employing non-collective or discriminatory methods of collecting royalties.
- Lastly, they request that the provisions in Section f of Article 113, Paragraph 2 of the Copyright Law be declared contrary to the 1945 Constitution and therefore have no legal effect.
Contrasting Opinion
The petition itself has faced challenges from the music community, most prominently by Ahmad Dhani. The legendary Dewa musician has been a vocal supporter of composer rights, making his stance clear regarding the petitions. According to Detik.com, Dhani described the move as childish, as he believes the musicians are seeking a ruling from the Court that would exempt singers from needing permission from songwriters or paying royalties when performing music. Dhani argued that the Indonesia copyright law already clearly mandates that performers must obtain permission from songwriters and pay royalties for performances. He further emphasized that performers, not event organizers, are responsible for paying royalties and that this is a well-established aspect of the law.
Conclusion
This petition could potentially be a crucial moment for Indonesia copyright law and the music industry. While the petitioners seek clearer regulations on licensing and royalties, the challenge has sparked differing opinions, with some arguing that the current law already addresses these issues. The Court’s decision could significantly impact the future of copyright practices in the country’s music sector.
As specialists in intellectual property, we assist creative professionals in confidently navigating the complexities of copyright law. Our experienced team provides expert guidance and tailored solutions to protect your rights. For any inquiries or assistance, please contact us at ambadar@ambadar.co.id—we are ready to support you.
Sources:
