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

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.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation