Indonesia’s Copyright Law grants exclusive economic rights. Local musicians are concerned about collective management organization (CMO) regulations.
As a signatory to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886), Indonesia commits itself to safeguarding economic rights in the field of intellectual property. Copyright Act No. 28 of 2014 (commonly known as the “Copyright Law”) embodies this commitment.
Article 8 of the Copyright Law defines economic rights as “the exclusive right of creators or copyright owners to obtain economic benefits from their creative works.” Article 9, paragraph 1, of the Copyright Law stipulates the exclusive right to publish, reproduce, translate, adapt, arrange, transform, distribute, perform, publish, disseminate and/or lease works.
The provision is consistent with international copyright standards and aims to give creators and copyright holders the exclusive right to oversee and profit from the commercial use and distribution of their artistic creations. In addition, Article 9(2) of the Copyright Law stipulates that individuals must obtain the permission of the author or copyright owner to exercise economic rights.
Recently, the implementation progress of the provisions on collective management organizations in the Copyright Law has caused uneasiness among local music creators. The Indonesian Intellectual Property Office expressed the view that the ability of music creators to exercise their economic rights is subject to state-sanctioned collective management organizations. According to this view, even if the music creator has not signed a contract with any collective management organization, he cannot enforce the economic rights in his music against the payers of the collective management organization.
This view is supported by Article 87(4) of the Copyright Act, which provides for an exemption from commercial use and clearly states that as long as the user complies with the obligations stipulated in the agreement with the collective management organization, no constitute infringement. This is a rule specific to musical works.
Two famous Indonesian musicians, Ahmad Dhani and Once Mekel, had a dispute over the copyright enforcement of the former’s musical works, causing the issue to attract media attention.
Dani wanted to enforce his authorship rights against Merkel. According to Dani, Mekel frequently performed publicly and sang Dani’s musical compositions. Merkel countered that he was immune from prosecution because the venue where he performed had paid fees to LMKN (the national collective management organization) and therefore obtained the necessary permission to perform. Both parties sought to obtain the Indonesian Intellectual Property Office’s opinion on the matter. According to reports, the Indonesian Intellectual Property Office seems more inclined to support performers than music creators. Dani’s justification as a music composer was that his songs had been removed from the catalog of the national collective management organization. However, his argument does not appear to be supported by the Indonesian Intellectual Property Office. The Indonesian Intellectual Property Office’s view is that all musical works can be performed as long as fees are paid to the national collective management organization. This view effectively means that as long as a national collective management organization exists, music creators do not enjoy exclusive economic rights. There is a view that the collective management organization provisions in the Copyright Law are actually a compulsory license, but it is a blanket compulsory license that applies to all music, regardless of whether the musical works have been included in the catalog of a collective management organization. .
Until the courts make a clear ruling on this, national collecting societies will be the only source of royalties for public performances of works. The jury is still out on the issue, given the backlash against it from the local music community.
