scholarly journals Tinjauan Perpajakan atas Transaksi Pemanfaatan Musik pada Lembaga Manajemen Kolektif

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 33
Author(s):  
Fafa Zawawi ◽  
Budiasih Widiastuti

Music is a work of intellectual property and art that can become a national potential that must be protected. As technology develops, bush communities are close to music in their daily lives for entertainment, industry, commercial and education. And also makes music or songs more quickly known in the ears of listeners thereby increasing its utilization. The creator or owner of the right to use the music has the right attached to it to get compensation for the use of copyright and / or related rights or commonly known as royalties. The creator or right owner must be a member of the Collective Management Institute (LMK) to be able to obtain economic rights in the form of royalties so that only LMK, the representative of the creator or right owner, collect and distribute royalties. LMK as a non-profit entity receives income in the form of fees or commissions for the total income received from the beneficiaries. Of course, income from the use of music has been deducted by income tax article 23 and can be used as a tax credit with annual income tax payable. The question arises as to who exactly the income is attributed to and who is entitled to the tax credit, as well as how the taxation aspects of the distribution of royalties to the creator or right holder so that in an effort to support effective tax administration and on the basis of justice. Keywords:  Royalty Income Tax, Collective Management Institute, Music Utilization

2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 155-160
Author(s):  
Ciprian Raul Romiţan

The moral rights represent the legal expression of the relationship between the workand its creator; they precede, survive and exert a permanent influence on the economic rights.Moral rights are independent of economic rights, the author of a work preserving these rightseven after the transfer of its property rights.The right to claim recognition as the author of the work, called in the doctrine as the"right of paternity of the work" is enshrined in art. 10 lit. b) of the law and it is based on theneed to respect the natural connection between the author and his work. The right toauthorship is the most important prerogative that constitutes intellectual property rights ingeneral and consists of recognizing the true author of a scientific, literary or artistic work.


2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (01) ◽  
pp. 37-54
Author(s):  
Elly Hernawati

Copyright is one of the Intellectual Property Rights components and should be paid attention to. Even more in technology era that developing, copyright protection needed to be enhanced, so that the right of creator, Copyright holder or owner of relevant rights can be protected and urge people to create. Indirectly, good and healthy business climate could be fostered.  Not all people have skill to create, that is why those people who have skill to create must be protected and even awarded, hoping that people urged to create. One of the creations that protected are song and music. In creating song or music, creator involve recording producer, music director or arranger. Regarding the creation, creator holds moral and economy rights, while parties involved hold the relevant rights to it. Collective Management Agency is an agency that help creator or relevant rights owner in managing and distributing the creation which is song or music that being commercialized. Yet the creator must be the member of the agency beforehand. Commercialization of a song or music by user can rise problem. Protection to the song or music is for the whole thing, including lyric, notation, arrangement and song title. The utilization of a song or music should be still protecting the parties that hold the copyright and the relevant right to it.


Author(s):  
Ralph D. Husby

What is the best way to compensate low-paid workers? A generous minimum wage may cause substantial unemployment and serious dislocations. The current combination of a modest minimum wage plus the annual-income-based earned income tax credit is, in some cases, a disincentive to work. An hourly-wage-based earned income tax credit, on the other hand, may be the most efficient and effective way to compensate the low-wage worker.


2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 354
Author(s):  
Riska Andi Fitriono ◽  
Sarwono .

This article aimed to analyze legal protection of Lurik Art Conservation Through <br />Intellectual Property Rights in Klaten Regency. Klaten is the area that is most<br />concerned with the survival of lurik weaving. There is someone mentioned that the<br />Klaten Regency was the capital of lurik weaving. Because the weaving of Looms<br />are not machines or Alat Tenun Bukan Mesin (hereinafter abbreviated to ATBM) <br />is a mainstay of this city. There are countless villages that become centers of lurik <br />craftsmen. This research is empirical or non-doctrinal research, which is a study<br />that sees the law not only from the perspective of legislation, but also sees the law<br />in its implementation. The results of the study show that the first legal protection in<br />preserving the current lurik art in Klaten, namely the Klaten Regency Government,<br />then stipulates the Regent's Regulation Number 53 of 2010 Article 23 Paragraph (9)<br />on the Daily Batik and Traditional Weaving Lurik Service or ATBM Striated and<br />the Klaten Regent's Decree Number : 065/1014/06 December 30, 2010 on Wearing<br />Traditional Weaving, Motives, Colors and Free Models with Attributes. Furthermore,<br />based on the Decree of the Regent of Klaten Number 050/84 of 2016 on Klaten<br />Regency's Superior Products, batik striated is one of the superior products of Klaten<br />Regency. With the issuance of these rules as an effort to protect and preserve lurik<br />art in Klaten district and referring to Law Number 28 of 2014 on Copyright, it has<br />regulated the forms of protection of lurik art in Klaten through Article 40 paragraph<br />(1). The Second Protection of Intellectual Property Rights Against Lurik Art, namely<br />Protection of lurik artworks, besides being accommodated in Law Number 28 of 2014<br />on Copyright (Copyright Law) and Trademark Law and other intellectual property<br />right laws. Elucidation of Article 40 paragraph (1) letter j of the Copyright Law. The<br />work is protected because it has artistic value, both in relation to the picture, style,<br />and color composition. The Copyright Act also emphasizes that it is important to<br />protect Copyright because every creator, in this case, the creator of the lurik motif<br />has the right to moral rights and economic rights.


Author(s):  
Hanna Ostapenko

Keywords: creative industry, architectural creation, architectural solution, architect,authors rights of architect Thearticle is devoted to analysis of the legal position of architect has in relations with theclient. Architecture is regarded as a creative industry in Ukraine, therefore the attentionpayed to protection of intellectual property rights in this sphere is important. Theidea implemented in architectural model should be protected according to the protectionof copyright. The industry remains creative until the level of creativeness is highin this economic sector and the number of people involved in production due to the effectivenessand demand for the product is increasing or remains constant. The resultof art and of the architecture is not only the object of property, owned by a client, butalso a piece of art protected as creation under copyright. The subject of such rights isan architect. The legal status of architect in Ukraine is provided by the right to supervisionduring the building process, demand of sighing a final act completing the construction,which means, the building is lead astray without breaking authors copyright.Other special rights are provided such as a right to make a photo of the objectbefore destroying it.Despite regarding architecture objects as protected by copyright the draft law isadopted in the first reading that limits the rights and influence of architect has in theprocess of building. The draft law proposes an option for architect to transfer rights,being apart from the process of building. This can cause a situation when the buildingwill be constructively changed, the creation will be changed without the authors participation.If this proposal will be implemented, the level of the creativeness in architecturewould decrease and even lost. So, the total sphere risks losing the status ofbeing creative. It is underlined that respect to the copyright in architecture is necessaryto the industry and its development. In particular. such rights of the architect asa subject of intellectual property law will be under threat: the freedom of creativity,the right to the inviolability of the work, economic rights. Another thing which is ofconcern is the responsibility of the architect. The removal of the architect during theconstruction process poses a risk of absence of the culprit in case of deformation or destructionof the object, caused by a structural defect or defect of the project.


2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-87
Author(s):  
Billy Handiwiyanto ◽  
Wisnu Aryo Dewanto

Intellectual Property Rights consist of various types, one of which is Copyright, Copyright is one of the Intellectual Property Rights that has a broad scope of scope of objects, to the Copyright that is owned, the Author and / or the Copyright Holder get an Exclusive Right on the Work , in which this Exclusive Right consists of 2 (two) types, namely the Moral Right to the Work, and also the Economic Right to the Work. The right to exploit the Work rests with the Author and/or the Copyright Holder of the Work, but there are often violations of the Exclusive Rights in this case the Economic Right which is the Right of the Author and/or the Copyright Holder to obtain economic benefits from the utilization of the Copyright, in which a Work is commercialized without Rights by other Parties who do not have the Right to Commercialize the Work. This study aims to determine the basis of the Liability of those commercializing a Work without Rights, which violates the Exclusive Rights of the Author and/or the Copyright Holder to utilize the Work in order to obtain economic benefits from the Work. This research was conducted using the Normative Jurisdiction research method which examines a problem on the basis of applicable laws and regulations, as well as from views and doctrines in the science of law. The results of this study state that other parties who without the right to commercialize a Work must be held accountable for violating the Exclusive Rights in this case the Exclusive Rights to the Economic Rights of the Author and/or the Copyright Holder.Hak Kekayaan Intelektual terdiri dari berbagai macam jenis, salah satunya Hak Cipta, Hak Cipta merupakan salah satu Hak Kekayaan Intelektual yang memiliki ruang lingkup cakupan obyek yang luas, terhadap Hak Cipta yang dimiliki, Pencipta dan/atau Pemegang Hak Cipta mendapatkan Hak Eksklusif atas Ciptaan tersebut, yang mana Hak Eksklusif ini terdiri dari 2 (dua) macam, yaitu Hak Moral atas Ciptaannya, dan juga Hak Ekonomi atas Ciptaan. Hak untuk mengeksploitasi Ciptaan tersebut terletak pada Pencipta dan/atau Pemegang Hak Cipta dari Ciptaan tersebut, namun seringkali terjadi pelanggaran terhadap Hak Eksklusif yang dalam hal ini ialah Hak Ekonomi yang merupaan Hak dari si Pencipta dan/atau Pemegang Hak Cipta untuk mendapatkan manfaat ekonomi dari pemanfaatan terhadap Hak Cipta tersebut, yang mana suatu Ciptaan dikomersialkan tanpa Hak oleh Pihak lain yang tidak punya Hak untuk Mengkomersialkan Ciptaan tersebut. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui dasar Tanggung Gugat dari pihak yang mengkomersialkan suatu Ciptaan tanpa Hak, yang melanggar Hak Eksklusif Pencipta dan/atau Pemegang Hak Cipta untuk memanfaatkan Ciptaan tersebut guna mendapatkan manfaat ekonomi dari Ciptaan tersebut. Penelitian ini dilaksanakan dengan metode penelitian Yuridis Normatif yang mana meneliti suatu masalah dengan dasar peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku, juga dari pandangan-pandangan dan doktrin-doktrin dalam ilmu hukum. Hasil penelitian ini menyatakan bahwa pihak lain yang dengan tanpa hak mengkomersialkan suatu Ciptaan harus bertanggung gugat karena melanggar Hak Eksklusif dalam hal ini Hak Eksklusif terhadap Hak Ekonomi dari Pencipta dan/atau Pemegang Hak Cipta.


2013 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 373
Author(s):  
Rudi Oosthuizen

Taxpayers who use intellectual property (such as patents and trademarks) in their trade in the production of income may obtain the right of such use in a number of different ways. The nature of the transaction granting the taxpayer the use of intellectual property items determines the tax treatment thereof. Taxpayers may be able to claim deductions for the cost of using these items in terms of specific income tax sections or the general deduction formula as outlined by the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962. There are also a number of other sections in the Act which may affect the timing and extent of the deductions allowed. This article investigates the various income tax deductions which may be available to taxpayers in South Africa who make payments in respect of intellectual property. It considers the effect of important recent case law and changes to tax legislation on the timing and extent of these deductions and suggests a framework which can be applied to assist the taxpayer in understanding the structure of such deductions.


2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 115-133
Author(s):  
Dwi Surya Hartati ◽  
Nely Herlina

The work of songs and music is one of several types of artistic works that is protected by the Act of Copyright. Copyright is regulated through Act No. 28 of 2014 About Copyright (Undang-Undang Hak Cipta or UUHC). Creators and Copyright holders have an exclusive right in the form of economic rights and moral rights. Economic rights can be acquired through the payment of royalty. According to the Act of Copyright, the National Collective Management Institution (Lembaga Manajemen Kolektif Nasional or LMKN) is the institution appointed to collect royalties from creators and/or holders of related rights. LMKN is a non-profit legal entity which has been given an authority by Copyright holders and/or holders of related rights to manage the economic rights in legally collecting and distributing royalties. In order to acquire their share in the royalty, each of the creators, Copyright holders, or the holders of related rights has to become a member of LMKN, and in return said LMKN got the authority to collect royalties from users of said artistic works. Royalty is a form of payment or rewards given to creators and/or Copyrights holders over the utilization of economic rights or related rights of a creation or a product. In Indonesia, there are a lot of LMKNs, in which the function is to collect royalties, including collecting exclusive rights of the holders of related rights. The resulting performance of Collective Management Institutions (Lembaga Manajemen Kolektif or LMK) has not reached its optimum capability for both creators and holders of related rights. The resulting advice of this paper is for the government to create a strict payment system and a method which can also be accessed digitally by the creators.


2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 113
Author(s):  
Michelle Lyon Drumbl

Refundable credits, particularly the earned income tax credit (EITC) and the child tax credit, serve an important anti-poverty measure for low-income taxpayers.  Annually, millions of taxpayers who do not owe any federal income tax must file a tax return in order to claim these credits that are in the nature of social benefits.  The eligibility requirements for refundable credits are complex, and these returns are particularly prone to audit: EITC audits comprise one-third of all individual income tax audits.  Because of the large dollar amounts at stake, a taxpayer’s mistaken understanding of the eligibility requirements for these refundable credits can often result in a deficiency of several thousand dollars. Though studies indicate that taxpayer error is more commonly inadvertent than intentional, the section 6662 20% accuracy-related penalty applies once the deficiency reaches a statutory “understatement” threshold; it is imposed computationally and without regard to the taxpayer’s intent. By statute, taxpayers have the right to contest the accuracy-related penalty by demonstrating that there was reasonable cause for the underlying error and the taxpayer acted in good faith. Treasury regulations provide that such a circumstance might include “an honest misunderstanding of fact or law that is reasonable in light of all the facts and circumstances, including the experience, knowledge, and education of the taxpayer”.  Yet for all of these reasons – lack of experience, lack of knowledge, and relative lack of education – the taxpayer is unlikely to have the knowledge or resources to raise the very defense that is meant to protect an unsophisticated taxpayer. Drawing comparisons between refundable tax credits and social programs administered by other agencies, this article calls upon the IRS to better differentiate between inadvertent error (“those who don’t know”) and intentional or fraudulent error (“those who know better”).  The article argues that the current accuracy-related penalty approach is unduly punitive.  It concludes by proposing solutions that the IRS might consider in light of Congress’s desire for the Service to administer these social benefits through the Internal Revenue Code.


Author(s):  
Haochen Sun

The right to technology is a forgotten human right. Dating back to 1948, the right was established by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (“UDHR”) in response to the massive destruction wrought by technologically advanced weapons in the Second World War. This human right embodies one of the most profound lessons the framers of the UDHR learned from this war: Technology must benefit humanity rather than harm it. It has been more than seventy years since the adoption of the UDHR, and technology has advanced at a rapid pace and become more important than ever in our daily lives. Yet in this age of technology, the right to technology remains obscure, dormant, and ineffective. No other human right has received such scant attention, and the right to technology has indeed become an “orphan” in the international human rights regime. This article traces the origins of society’s disregard for the right and attributes it to the confluence of three main contributing factors: (1) the right’s inherent obscurity, (2) the ineffective human rights enforcement system, and (3) the international community’s overemphasis on intellectual property protection. The current human rights regime is unable to sufficiently address these complex factors, as it remains deeply rooted in the individual rights system and lacks a fully-fledged distributive justice vision. Against this backdrop, this article reinvigorates the right to technology by recommending its protection as a collective right. It considers how and why the right to technology should be redefined as a collective right that entitles people to enjoy the benefits of technological progress and minimizes the harms that such progress may cause. A collective right to technology can protect both larger societal interests in maintaining public freedom and dignity, as well as specific group interests in guarding against the use of technologies to prejudice group freedom and dignity. This new understanding of the right to technology, therefore, sets distributive justice agendas for promoting the development of intellectual property law into the public interest.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document