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​ 

June 24, 2026
Patent enablement requirements are provided under Article 102 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). In particular, a patent specification must “fully and clearly disclose the nature of the invention to such an extent that, based on the specification, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement the invention.” In pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents, this requirement is more complicated and subject to more rigorous assessment. The Patent Examination Guidelines (Guidelines) of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) were amended in March 2026 to introduce Annexes III and IV for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, in which Annex III provides detailed guidelines on the assessment of specification requirements. These amendments were made under a project for strengthening capacity in industrial property examination between the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the IP Office. Annex III provides detailed instructions on how examiners assess enablement in a pharmaceutical or biotechnology application, and offers examples of acceptable and unacceptable descriptions with regard to the enablement aspect. Enablement Requirements in Pharma and Biotech Patents Article 12.7 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10) adds to the requirements of Article 102 of the IP Law that the description must demonstrate the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of the technical solution. For pharmaceutical composition subject matters, Article 12.9 of Circular 10 sets out that the description must present the results of clinical trials and/or the pharmacological effects of the claimed pharmaceutical composition, and must include at least the following information: Substance/mixture used. Testing method (system) employed. Information on the test results. Correlation between the pharmacological effects obtained from the tests and the application of the pharmaceutical product in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. The Guidelines note that pharmacological study results should be presented in a quantified manner, and pharmacological
Read More
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