You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

June 15, 2021

Indonesia Revamps Management of Music Royalties

Subscribe to Updates

Seven years after Indonesia enacted its new copyright law (Law No. 28 of 2014), the government has finally published an implementing regulation relating to the management of royalties for songs or music under copyright. The new guidelines are contained in Government Regulation No. 56 of 2021 on Song and/or Music Copyrights Royalties Management, which was welcomed by creators, rights holders, and other related parties when it was issued on March 31.

The regulation lays out 13 commercial public venues and uses that are subject to royalty payments for playing songs or music under copyright:

  • Seminars and commercial conferences;
  • Restaurants, cafés, pubs, bars, bistros, night clubs, and discotheques;
  • Music concerts;
  • Airplanes, buses, trains, and ships;
  • Exhibitions and bazaars;
  • Cinemas;
  • Ringtones;
  • Banks and offices;
  • Stores;
  • Recreation centers;
  • TV stations;
  • Radio stations;
  • Hotels, hotel rooms, and hotel facilities; and
  • Karaoke services.

Collection and distribution of royalties from commercial users of songs or music is conducted by the National Collective Management Agency (Lembaga Manajemen Kolektif Nasional, or LMKN) on behalf of creators and rights holders. The organization consists of two sections—LMKN Creators and LMKN Related Rights Holders—each of which is led by an independent commissioner with duties and organizational structure regulated by further ministerial regulation.

The new regulation mandates the establishment of two new repositories, within two years, that will have important implications for the management of royalties for musical works. One of these—the government’s Song and Music Data Center—will contain information on all the songs and music registered with Indonesia’s Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) and will be accessible to anyone seeking information related to commercial use of a registered musical work (e.g., LMKN, creators and rights holders, commercial users, etc.). The second repository is the Song and Music Information System, which is an internal system to be developed and administered by LMKN itself to aid in the distribution of royalties based on the commercial use of protected musical works. LMKN’s calculation of royalties will be based on integrated data in the public Song and Music Data Center, in line with the provision in the Copyright Law that requires creators, rights holders, and related rights holders to register their musical works in order to receive their economic rights through a collective management agency (CMA).

While much of LMKN’s work is devoted to creators and rights holders who are members of a CMA, LMKN is also required to collect royalties for non–CMA members. Royalties for creators and rights holders who are not known or are not members of a CMA are kept by LMKN for two years and announced publicly in an attempt to notify the creators or rights holders of the pending royalties. If the two years elapse without anyone coming forward, LMKN can add the royalties to its reserves. The royalties collected will be distributed to creators, rights holders, and related rights holder who have become members of a CMA, and used for operational and reserve funds according to a predetermined formula.

If there is a dispute over the distributed royalties, the regulation allows creators, rights holders, or related rights holders to submit the matter to the DGIP for mediation. The regulation does not give further details on the mediation process, such as whether the DGIP needs to create a special board or the procedural requirements for submission of complaints.

The song or music registration requirements stipulated in the new regulation incur an IDR 500,000 (approx. USD 35) fee per recordation, which could deter some rightsholders from taking part. Overall however, the emergence of the regulation remains a positive step in Indonesia’s copyright regime for musical works, and is expected to lead more creators and rights holders to officially register their music, even though the copyright arises automatically upon a work’s creation (i.e., without recordation), to provide a better basis for any future claims of infringement and a more equitable platform for the redistribution of royalties.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
Read More