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

October 16, 2014

Indonesia’s New Copyright Law: The Highlights

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Indonesia’s House of Representatives passed the latest draft of the country’s Copyright Bill on September 16, 2014, and it will soon come into law. These latest revisions mark the third set of amendments made in the history of Indonesia’s copyright law.

The new copyright law seeks to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Indonesia’s copyright system, including its enforcement mechanisms, while ensuring compliance with the country’s ratified international conventions.

The changes introduced by the new copyright law are generally favorable to copyright owners. Of particular note is that the changes pave the way for a clearer understanding of the country’s copyright law—a law previously beset by ambiguity.

Clearer Definitions

The new copyright law defines many previously unclear terms including “royalty,” “copyright piracy,” “compensation,” “commercial use,” and “Collection Management Organization.” This will go far toward fostering understanding between copyright owners and law enforcement agencies, as well as between licensors and licensees in the context of license agreements.

Longer Periods of Copyright Protection

The period of protection for most types of copyright works is to be extended from 50 years to 70 years after the death of the author. In the case of a work owned by a legal entity, copyright will remain valid for 50 years from the date of first publication.

Landlord Liability

According to the new copyright law, the management of a trade venue, such as a shopping mall or retail center, is prohibited from allowing the sale and/or reproduction of counterfeit goods which infringe upon the copyright or related rights of others.  

If a landlord deliberately and knowingly allows the sale and/or reproduction of counterfeit goods at their trade venue, the landlord shall be liable to a maximum fine of approximately USD 9,000.

While the criminal sanction for landlord liability excludes imprisonment, the introduction of a fine actually represents a remarkable step for Indonesia’s system of IP law. As an offshoot effect, other pending bills, such as those related to Indonesia’s trademark and patent laws, will most likely introduce a similar provision. This will serve as a strong supporting force to tackle Indonesia’s rampant copyright piracy.

The success of the landlord liability provisions, however, very much relies on the cooperation of the authorities—especially the police and the investigation unit at the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP). Another potentially complicating issue is whether landlords can include a waiver clause in the lease agreement to bypass the provisions and transfer all of the liabilities to the tenant.

Collective Management Organization

In order to assist copyright holders, including authors, to manage and collect a reasonable amount of compensation from users of their copyright works, the new law introduces the concept of Collective Management Organizations.

A Collective Management Organization can be established in the form of a nonprofit legal entity authorized by the copyright holder and/or the author and in possession of an operation permit, obtained from the Minister of Laws and Human Rights. In order to qualify for the operation permit, the Collective Management Organization must meet a requirement to represent a minimum number of copyright holders and/or authors. For example, the minimum number requirement for Collective Management Organizations in the field of songs and music is 200 authorizers of a shared interest.

The Collective Management Organizations should, in theory, be welcomed by all stakeholders, as this system sets out to standardize all of the royalty collection agencies through government control. It should also mitigate the problem posed by malicious, unauthorized collection agencies, which have manipulated copyright law to threaten copyright users such as owners of restaurants and karaoke clubs.

The law stipulates that further details on the procedures of application, issuance of an operation permit, and evaluation of the Collective Management Organizations will be further regulated under forthcoming implementing regulations.     

Prohibition on Recordal of Trademark Logos

As a general rule, a work automatically enjoys copyright protection when it is created, and it is not necessary to register this right. Although registration is not mandatory, the DGIP allows for copyright recordal to enable a copyright holder or author to record their work for purposes of prima facie evidence.

The new law, however, explicitly states that a painting or drawing in the form of a logo or other distinctive sign which is used as a trademark cannot be recorded. But the law does not state whether such trademark logo would be protected under the copyright law. Notably, a drawing of a logo being used as a trademark is not listed among the noncopyrightable works under Article 41.

Copyright of Drawings for Industrial Designs

Under the previous copyright law, an industrial design drawing was precluded from copyright protection, while this preclusion is not seen under the new law. This suggests that it may now be possible to claim copyright protection for an industrial design drawing.

E-Filing of Copyright Recordal

The new copyright law allows for copyright recordal to be made through an online filing system, introduced by the DGIP a few months ago and currently undergoing a trial period. Several more months may be needed for the DGIP to bridge an effective payment system with major local banks to allow for the online payment of official fees.  

The new e-filing system will likely be extended to other types of IP registrations, such as trademarks or patents, in the future.

Online Infringement

To tackle online infringement, the new copyright law empowers the Ministry of Information to block access to infringing material found on the Internet, although details about how this will occur in practice are not yet clear.

A Better IP Landscape for Indonesia

In summary, this new copyright law is a promising step toward improving Indonesia’s IP landscape, and hopefully, this momentum will carry over to other pending bills—notably the trademark and patent bills—as well. The key to successfully implementing this law lies heavily on the implemented regulations to be issued by the Ministry, which will ensure that all mechanisms introduced under the law can function properly.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More
September 2, 2026
Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms. Effective cooperation between the two countries’ enforcement authorities has therefore become increasingly important. To strengthen cooperation in this area, Thailand and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on IP enforcement in Beijing on July 20, 2026, during the Thai prime minister’s official visit to China. Officially titled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand on Cooperation in the Field of Intellectual Property Enforcement,” the MOU forms part of a broader bilateral agenda covering industrial and supply chains, participation by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), cooperation associated with the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area 3.0, and progress on the registration of Thai geographical indications in China. The MOU establishes a bilateral framework for cooperation and coordination in five broad areas: Strengthening dialogue in IP enforcement; Enhancing information sharing; Facilitating the enforcement of IP rights in cases arising in the parties’ domestic markets and on online platforms, in accordance with their respective domestic laws; Promoting cooperation in IP enforcement training and human resource development; and Undertaking other cooperation activities agreed upon by both sides. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will serve as the principal coordinating agency for Thailand, while the Bureau of Law Enforcement and Inspection in China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) will serve in that role for China. The framework is particularly relevant to the growth of e-commerce, as it covers infringement in the domestic markets and on
Read More
August 28, 2026
When considering a franchise, many people first think of a restaurant, retail chain, or service outlet. From a legal perspective, however, the foundation of every franchise lies in the right to use a brand, which is typically granted through a trademark license. Trademarks are often the most valuable assets in a franchise system. Through a trademark license, a franchisor authorizes a franchisee to use its trademarks, logos, and branding while maintaining control over how the brand is presented to customers. The Role of Trademarks in Franchise Businesses Under the Trademark Law 2019, a mark is defined as a sign that is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of others in the course of trade. This distinguishing function is particularly important in a franchise arrangement, where the franchisee’s use of the franchisor’s trademark allows consumers to recognize the source, quality, and reputation of the business. In this way, trademarks help preserve brand identity, strengthen market recognition, and protect the commercial value of the franchise system. Legal Foundation for Franchise Brand Protection Myanmar presently does not have a specific statutory framework governing franchise arrangements. As a result, franchise agreements are generally regulated under the broader applicable legal framework, including the Contract Act 1872, the Trademark Law 2019, the Competition Law 2015, the Consumer Protection Law 2019, and the relevant implementing rules and regulations. The licensing of trademarks within a franchise arrangement is particularly governed by the Trademark Law 2019. Franchisors should ensure that the trademarks intended to be licensed to franchisees in Myanmar are registered under the Trademark Law 2019 and that the relevant trademark license is properly recorded with the Intellectual Property Department (IPD). Trademark License Recordal Under the Trademark Law 2019, the owner of a registered trademark may grant a license to another
Read More
August 27, 2026
It is generally understood that patents are granted for new designs that have not been widely known or used in Thailand and not been disclosed anywhere prior to the date of the patent application. It is trite law that design law protects the distinctive appearance or products. Under Section 3 of the Thai Patent Act B.E. 2522, as amended by the Patent Act (No. 2) B.E. 2535 and the Patent Act (No. 3) B.E. 2542, a design is defined as “any form or composition of lines or colors that gives a product a special appearance and can serve as a pattern for an industrial or handicraft product.” This raises an important question. Can a patent be issued for a product design that contains text, numerals, trademarks, or symbols that do not fall under the definition of a design? This issue commonly arises when attempting to register packaging, labels, and graphical user interfaces (GUIs). Until a few years ago, applicants could file design applications with the Thai Patent Office for designs that contained such elements, provided that an appropriate disclaimer was included. This practice was generally accepted by Thai design examiners at that time, but the Patent Office has since implemented a change in its practice that could have a significant impact on applicants for design patents. Where design representations are submitted as line drawings or computer-aided design (CAD) drawings, the examiner may now issue an office action requiring their removal. This practice, however, appears to be applied inconsistently, as some examiners still exercise their own discretion in determining whether drawings containing these elements are acceptable. Below are examples of a GUI design, a CAD drawing design, and a photographic design representation that illustrates issues relating to the presence of nonallowable elements. GUI design For this GUI design, the submitted
Read More