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not grant a license if the term of protection of the relevant IP has lapsed or if the relevant IP registration has been withdrawn;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​ 

July 24, 2026
As food innovation continues to accelerate, manufacturers are increasingly introducing ingredients derived from new sources, produced using novel technologies, or lacking a significant history of human consumption. While these innovations create new opportunities for the food industry, they also raise important questions regarding consumer safety. For this reason, many jurisdictions, including Thailand, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore, require a premarket safety assessment for novel food ingredients before they can be placed on the market. The objective of this assessment is to ensure that each ingredient is safe for its intended use and level of consumption, does not present toxicological, allergenic, microbiological, or nutritional concerns, and will not mislead consumers. Scientific authorities typically evaluate the ingredient’s identity, manufacturing process, composition, specifications, anticipated dietary exposure, toxicological information, nutritional impact, and history of use before determining whether it can be marketed. Against this background, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently took an important step toward improving regulatory transparency by publishing, for the first time, a consolidated public list of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process, including substances determined to be novel foods and those determined not to fall within the novel food category. The list identifies the approved substances, the corresponding manufacturers or importers, approval dates, and the approved conditions of use. Although the publication does not change the existing legal framework governing novel food approvals, it provides businesses with greater visibility into the Thai FDA’s regulatory precedents and the types of substances that have previously been accepted through the safety assessment process. The full announcement is available on the Thai FDA’s website. As the list is now publicly available, it also provides useful insight into the types of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process.
Read More
July 24, 2026
Indonesia has updated its fee framework for intellectual property (IP)-related government services, with implications for IP owners, licensees, lenders, digital platforms, and businesses operating in the country. Government Regulation No. 30 of 2026 on Types and Tariffs of Non-Tax State Revenue Applicable to the Ministry of Law (GR 30/2026) was promulgated on July 2, 2026, and will take effect on August 1, 2026. Key Takeaways GR 30/2026, which replaces the relevant IP service fees under Government Regulation No. 45 of 2024, reorganizes the fee schedule into separate categories for copyright, industrial designs, patents, layout designs of integrated circuits, trade secrets, trademarks, geographical indications, IP enforcement, and other categories. The most commercially relevant changes include a new copyright recordation tariff exemption for songs and music, higher fees for several trademark and geographical indication services, new IP enforcement service fees, and a new fee type for registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects. In addition, this is the first major update for trademark fees in approximately 10 years. GR 30/2026 is significant not only as a fee update but also as a further indication of Indonesia’s increasing recognition of IP as a financeable commercial asset. By expressly assigning fees to the registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects, the regulation places IP-backed collateral filings within the Ministry of Law’s administrative service framework. While GR 30/2026 does not create a new secured-transactions regime, this development is relevant for lenders, borrowers, and IP owners structuring financing arrangements secured by trademarks, patents, copyrights, industrial designs, or other registrable IP rights in Indonesia. Copyright: New Fee Exemption for Songs and Music Recordation For copyright, GR 30/2026 creates a fee-exempt category for recordation of works or related-rights products for songs or music, while maintaining a separate category for other works and related-rights products. It
Read More
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More
July 15, 2026
Ambush marketing refers to a strategy in which a business associates itself with an event, campaign, or brand without paying for official sponsorship rights. The tactic is most visible in sports, concerts, and festivals, where official sponsors have invested substantially for exclusivity. Ambush marketers may use suggestive wording, event-themed imagery, athlete endorsements, venue-adjacent promotions, or social media campaigns implying a commercial connection with the event. Common Forms of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing typically takes one of the following forms: Direct ambushing: using event names, logos, or mascots suggesting authorization Coattail ambushing: sponsoring an athlete or broadcaster connected with the event Subtle ambushing: themed advertising, venue-adjacent campaigns, or similar visual cues The legal analysis in each case turns on whether the marketing crosses from permissible event-based advertising into infringement, passing off, deception, or wrongful exploitation of goodwill, and the risk assessment is necessarily fact-specific. Thailand has no dedicated ambush marketing statute, so legality depends on execution. A campaign that merely comments on a public event may be permissible, but one that uses protected marks, creates consumer confusion, misrepresents sponsorship status, or makes unsubstantiated claims may trigger liability under various Thai laws, as laid out below. Ambush Marketing and Thailand’s Trademark Act The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) is the primary tool for addressing campaigns that use registered trademarks, event names, logos, mascots, or confusingly similar signs. The law gives registered trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark for registered goods, and infringement risk arises when a nonsponsor uses an event mark or a confusingly similar sign in advertising. Even referential or playful use may create liability if it causes public confusion as to sponsorship or commercial connection. The law also preserves passing-off claims for unregistered marks. This matters because event names, taglines, or mascots may not always be
Read More