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

January 24, 2023

Intellectual Property License Agreements and Copyrights in Indonesia

Subscribe to Updates

Indonesia’s current Trademark, Patent, Industrial Design, and Copyright Laws require all intellectual property (IP) license agreements to be recorded in order to have binding force for third parties. Since the enactment of Government Regulation No. 36 of 2018 on Recordation of IP License Agreements (GR 36/2018), recordation of IP license agreements has been carried out by Indonesia’s Directorate-General of Intellectual Property (DGIP).

Even before the issuance of GR 36/2018, the DGIP had started receiving applications for recordation of IP license agreements after the Ministry of Law and Human Rights (MOLHR) issued an IP recordation implementing regulation under MOLHR Regulation No. 8 of 2016 on Requirements and Procedures for Recordation of IP License Agreements. However, as the mechanism for processing such applications had not been determined by the DGIP, the department left the requests unprocessed until the issuance of GR 36/2018. Prior to that, the preferred alternative was to file a letter of intention to record the license agreement with the DGIP so that related parties could rely on the letter in the absence of a regulation.

This article outlines the general requirements for IP license recordation in Indonesia and considers how the current system works with the country’s laws and regulatory environment for copyrights—particularly the necessity to obtain proof of copyright ownership prior to recording a copyright license agreement.

Overview of IP License Agreements

As noted above, IP license agreements must be recorded in order to be binding for third parties. License agreements that are not recorded will not have legal effect against third parties, although they are still legally binding for the contracting parties. For an IP license agreement to be eligible for recordation under GR 36/2018, it must meet the following main requirements:

  • The licensor must not grant a license if the term of protection of the relevant IP has lapsed or if the relevant IP registration has been withdrawn;
  • The license agreement must be written in Indonesian language or accompanied by a translation for the DGIP; and
  • The agreement cannot include provisions that may harm Indonesia’s economy or national interests, result in unfair business competition, or conflict with prevailing laws, religion, morality, or public order.

The regulation also specifies that IP license agreements should include the following elements:

  • Date, month, year, and location of the signing of the license agreement;
  • Name and address of the licensor and licensee;
  • Object of the license agreement;
  • Provision on whether the license is exclusive or nonexclusive, including whether sublicensing is permissible;
  • Duration of the license agreement;
  • Territorial scope of the license agreement; and
  • For patent licenses, which party will make annuity payments.

If the licensor or licensee is a foreign national or a foreign entity domiciled outside Indonesia, the recordation application has to be filed through a local registered IP consultant.

Copyright Protection and Recordation in Indonesia

Like in most countries, copyright protection in Indonesia arises automatically as soon as a work exists or is created, in accordance with the Copyright Law. Although it is not mandatory to record copyright, a certification of copyright recordation can be useful for establishing preliminary proof of copyright ownership (i.e., prima facie evidence) in the event of enforcement and disputes.

Proof of copyright ownership—in the form of a copyright certificate—is also required for recording a copyright license agreement, in accordance with the requirements of GR 36/2018. This means that if a copyright work has not yet been recorded at the DGIP, it is necessary to record the copyright work before recording a copyright license agreement referring to that work.

Fortunately, obtaining such a certificate has become considerably easier in recent years. On December 20, 2021, the DGIP issued a decision with the aim of accelerating the copyright recordation process. Decision No. HKI-05.TI.03.02 of 2021 on Implementation of Automatic Approval in Copyright Recordation System officially established the POP-HC (from the Indonesian name Persetujuan Otomatis Pencatatan) system, which reduces processing time for an application for recordation of copyright from 14 working days to 10 minutes. The system simplifies the recordation application process by automating the usually lengthy bureaucratic process, and it issues a copyright certificate in electronic form.

POP-HC makes it easier for the public to obtain protection for a copyright work, in line with the principle of copyright protection arising automatically from the moment the work comes into existence. The system also makes it possible for licensors and licensees to file a registration for a copyright that has not been recorded—plus the license agreement recordation application—in just one day. Previously, the licensor and licensee had to wait for days for the copyright certificate to be issued.

Recommendations

In summary, although the Copyright Law states that recordation is not a requirement to obtain copyrights or related rights, recordation of a copyright license agreement requires proof of copyright ownership in the form of a copyright certificate. Therefore, parties who intend to file a copyright license agreement in Indonesia pertaining to a copyright work that has not yet been recorded should record the work with the DGIP. With the tools now provided by the DGIP, this is a fast and relatively simple process that can be handled even on the same day as submitting the license recordation application.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
Read More
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
Read More
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
Read More