scholarly journals PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM TERHADAP PENCIPTA LAGU “LAGI SYANTIK” ATAS PERUBAHAN LIRIK TANPA IZIN PEMEGANG HAK CIPTA

Yurispruden ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 75
Author(s):  
Lully Tiyas Junita
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Copyright Infringement ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Copyright Holder ◽  
Legal Regulations ◽  
The Creation ◽  
Exclusive Right

ABSTRACTCopyright is an exclusive right that arises automatically based on declarative principles after the creation is in real or visualized form. Legal protection for songwriters is regulated in Law Number 28 of 2014 concerning Copyright. This research covers two main problems. First one, how is the implementation of copyright infringement on the song "Lagi Syantik" which is sung without permission from the copyright holder? The second, how is the legal protection of authors for songs whose lyrics have been changed without the permission of the copyright holders? This paper uses normative juridical research. This research uses 2 types of approaches, such as the statute approach and the case approach. The result of the research were the cover version of the song is not a prohibited activity if it is carried out based on applicable legal regulations and legal protection for copyright holders is regulated in the Copyright Law, Criminal Law, and Civil Law. Keyword: Copyright, The Copyright Holder, Legal Protection, Song. ABSTRAKHak Cipta adalah hak eksklusif yang timbul secara otomatis berdasarkan prinsip deklaratif setelah ciptaan sudah dalam bentuk nyata atau sudah divisualkan. Perlindungan hukum untuk pencipta lagu telah diatur di dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 28 Tahun 2014 tentang Hak Cipta. Permasalahan penelitian ini meliputi yaitu Pertama, bagaimana bentuk pelanggaran hak cipta atas lagu “Lagi Syantik” yang dinyanyikan ulang tanpa izin dari pemegang hak cipta? Kedua, bagaimana perlindungan hukum terhadap pencipta atas lagu yang diubah lirik tanpa seizin pemegang hak cipta?. Penulisan ini menggunakan penelitian yuridis-normatif. Penelitian ini menggunakan 2 jenis pendekatan, yakni pendekatan perundang-undangan (statute approach) dan pendekatan kasus (case approach). Hasil dari penelitian ini adalah cover version lagu bukan kegiatan yang dilarang jika dilakukan sesuai aturan hukum yang berlaku dan perlindungan hukum terhadap pemegang hak cipta diatur dalam Undang-Undang Hak Cipta, Hukum Pidana, dan  Hukum Perdata. Kata Kunci: Hak Cipta, Pemegang Hak Cipta, Perlindungan Hukum, Lagu

scholarly journals PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM HAK CIPTA TERHADAP COVER VERSION LAGU DI YOUTUBE

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 508
Author(s):  
Anak Agung Mirah Satria Dewi
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Copyright Protection ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Copyright Infringement ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Copyright Holder ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
The Creation ◽  
Cover Songs

Protection of copyright law against cover version of song on youtube. Copyright protection only extends to the “expression” of the creator, and not to the “idea” or information derived from a work. This is what happens in cover songs, others have the freedom to express the same idea or reuse the information gained from the creation or work that is protected into the work afterwards as long as the idea is expressed in a different way. The formulation of the problem in this research is 1. Does making cover versions of songs belonging to others and uploading to youtube social media is a form of copyright infringement? and 2. What is the legal protection of the copyright holder for copyright infringement in the field of music and song in the form of commercial cover version?. The type of research used in this study is the type of normative legal research. The conclusion of the results of this research is in making cover versions of songs and uploading to youtube social media in general do not violate the Copyright when the making and announcement is done by not violating the exclusive rights of copyright holder and legal protection against the copyright holder over copyright infringement in the field of music and songs in the form of commercialized version cover can be done through two ways, namely preventive efforts and repressive efforts. Abstrak Perlindungan hukum hak cipta terhadap cover version lagu di youtube. Perlindungan hak cipta hanya mencakup kepada “ekspresi” pencipta, dan bukan kepada “ide” atau informasi yang didapat dari suatu ciptaan. Hal inilah yang terjadi dalam kegiatan cover lagu, pihak lain memiliki kebebasan untuk mengekspresikan ide yang sama atau menggunakan kembali informasi yang diperoleh dari ciptaan atau karya yang dilindungi kedalam karya sesudahnya selama ide tersebut diekspresikan dengan cara yang berbeda. Rumusan masalah dalam penelitian ini adalah 1. Apakah membuat cover version lagu dan mengunggah ke media sosial youtube merupakan suatu bentuk pelanggaran hak cipta ? dan 2. Bagaimanakah perlindungan hukum terhadap pemegang hak cipta atas pelanggaran hak cipta di bidang musik dan lagu dalam bentuk cover version yang di komersilkan ?. Jenis penelitian yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah jenis penelitian hukum normatif. Kesimpulan dari hasil penelitian ini yaitu membuat cover version lagu dan mengunggah ke media sosial youtube secara umum tidak melanggar Hak Cipta apabila pembuatan dan pengumuman tersebut dilakukan dengan tidak melanggar hak-hak eksklusif pemegang hak cipta dan perlindungan hukum terhadap pemegang hak cipta atas pelanggaran hak cipta dibidang musik dan lagu dalam bentuk cover version yang dikomersilkan dapat dilakukan melalui dua cara yaitu upaya preventif dan upaya represif.

PERLINDUNGAN HAK ATAS KEKAYAAN INTELEKTUAL DI KOTA MAKASSAR

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashar Sinilele
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Copyright Infringement ◽  
Copyright Holder ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The Right

AbstractLaw Copyright No. 19 of 2002 put copyright infringement as an ordinary offense no longer an offense. So that peraktis includes crime offenses. In the Copyright Act there are additional minimum and maximum criminal provisions, which are intended to counteract copyright infringement. The creator or heir has the right to sue the copyright holder to be included in his creation. A work must not be changed even though the copyright has been handed over to another party, except with the consent of his heirs in terms of creation has died. The provisions as referred to in paragraph (2) also apply to changes in the title and subhead of the creation, inclusion and alteration of the name or pseudonym of the creator.Keywords: Legal Protection, Intellectual Property RightsAbstrakUndang-undang Hak Cipta No. 19 Tahun 2002 menempatkan pelanggaran hak cipta sebagai delik biasa bukan lagi delik aduan. Sehingga peraktis termasuk delik-delik kejahatan. Dalam Undang-Undang Hak Cipta tersebut terdapat penambahan ketentuan pidana minimal dan maksimal, yang dimaksudkan untuk menangkal terhadap pelanggaran hak cipta. Pencipta atau ahli warisnya berhak menuntut pemegang hak cipta tetap dicantumkan dalam ciptaannya. Suatu ciptaan tidak boleh diubah walaupun hak ciptanya telah diserahkan kepada pihak lain, kecuali dengan persetujuan ahli warisnya dalam hal penciptaan telah meninggal dunia. Ketentuan sebagai mana dimaksud dalam ayat (2) berlaku juga terhadap perubahan judul dan anak judul ciptaan, pencantuman dan perubahan nama atau nama samaran pencipta.Kata Kunci : Perlindungan Hukum, Hak Atas Kekayaan Intelektual

scholarly journals Urgensi Perubahan Delik Biasa Menjadi Delik Aduan dan Relevansinya terhadap Perlindungan dan Penegakan Hak Cipta

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 347-362 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hanafi Amrani
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Active Role ◽  
Copyright Infringement ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Copyright Holder ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Exclusive Right

This article discusses two main issues: first, what is the urgency of the change in nature of offences from ordinary offence to be complaint offence in the copyright law; second, how is the relevance of the change in the nature of the offense to protect and enforce copyright. The urgency of changes in offenses is usually an offense against complaints because copyright is an exclusive right that is personal and civil rights. This personal and civil right indicate the absolute right of the creator or the copyright holder to the results of their work, including the right to report or not to infringe their copyright. Therefore conceptually this personal and civilian nature emphasizes the alignment of mindset that the complaint offence is more appropriately applied to copyright infringement. Whereas the relevance of complaint offence for protection and enforcement of copyright can be seen from the significant role of the creator or copyright holder in the law enforcement process. The creator or copyright holder can play an active role in providing information and evidence of copyright infringement so that the law enforcement process becomes more effective and efficient. Abstrak Artikel ini membahas dua permasalahan pokok: pertama, apa urgensi perubahan delik biasa menjadi delik aduan dalam Undang-undang Hak Cipta; kedua, bagaimana relevansi perubahan sifat delik tersebut terhadap perlindungan dan penegakan hukum hak cipta. Urgensi perubahan delik biasa menjadi delik aduan adalah karena hak cipta merupakan hak eksklusif yang bersifat personal dan keperdataan. Sifat personal dan keperdataan ini mengindikasikan adanya hak mutlak dari pencipta atau pemegang hak cipta atas hasil karya ciptanya, termasuk hak untuk melaporkan atau tidak atas pelanggaran hak ciptanya. Oleh karena itu secara konseptual sifat personal dan keperdataan ini lebih mengedepankan keselarasan pola pikir bahwa delik aduan lebih tepat diterapkan terhadap pelanggaran hak cipta. Sedangkan relevansi delik aduan terhadap perlindungan dan penegakan hak cipta dapat dilihat dari peran yang signifikan dari pencipta atau pemegang hak cipta dalam proses penegakan hukum. Pencipta atau pemegang hak cipta dapat berperan aktif dalam memberikan keterangan dan bukti-bukti dari pelanggaran hak cipta tersebut sehingga proses penegakan hukum dapat berjalan lebih efektif dan efisien.

scholarly journals Criminal procedure mechanism of pre-trial settlement of simple criminal and legal disputes: current state and direction of improvement

2019 ◽  
pp. 207-210
Author(s):  
Владимир Шерстнев ◽  
Vladimir Sherstnev
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Trial Procedure ◽  
Enforcement Mechanism ◽  
Current State ◽  
The Creation

One of the directions for improving the enforcement mechanism (criminal law norms) is the creation of a simplified pre-trial procedure for resolving simple criminal- legal disputes. The author makes several suggestions for creating such a procedure. This implies increased competition in the legal organization of pre-trial proceedings and the emergence of the possibility of replacing the criminal law measure of liability with administrative law or civil law.

scholarly journals So Dark the Con(tu) of Man: The Quest for a Software Derivative Work Right in Section 117

2008 ◽  
Vol 70 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lateef Mtima
Keyword(s):  
Computer Software ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Copyright Holder ◽  
User Adaptation ◽  
New Public ◽  
Derivative Work ◽  
Software Programs ◽  
Exclusive Right ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Judicial Recognition

Computer software programs have various unique characteristics as copyrightable works. Among other things, unlike traditional copyrightable works, it is necessary to copy and often to modify software programs in order to use them. In addition, as functional works, the development of additional programs, an overarching goal of copyright protection, often requires the “efficient reuse” of protected elements of preexisting programs. The copyright law currently provides an ambiguous and contradictory response to these issues. While section 117 of the Copyright Act provides program users with the privilege to prepare “adaptations” of copyrighted programs, section 106 reserves to copyright holders the exclusive right to prepare derivative versions of their programs. This article proposes that user adaptation privileges can be distinguished from, and reconciled with, copyright holder derivative work exclusive rights by virtue of the impact that a user-prepared adaptation will have upon the market for the original copyrighted program: “market benign” adaptations should be treated as privileged adaptations, while “market pernicious” adaptations should be treated as derivative works and therefore, subject to the rights of the copyright holder in the original program. In addition, the “practical-use versus market-impact” balancing rationale used to draw the foregoing distinction can also be used to reconstruct the traditional derivative work right into a narrower “software derivative work right.” This software derivative work right would limit the copyright holder’s exclusive right to that of creating derivative programs that are likely to compete with, or otherwise have an undue impact on the market for, the original copyrighted software program. This would enable judicial recognition of a new “public derivative work privilege” to create non-competitive derivative software programs from preexisting works.

PRAVNOISTORIJSKI POGLED NA ZELENAŠKE USLUGE U SRPSKOM PRAVU

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Biljana Gavrilović ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Second World War ◽  
The State ◽  
World War ◽  
Money Economy ◽  
The Creation ◽  
Second World

The paper analyzes the state reaction to usurer services, starting from the 1830s until the Second World War. At the time of the transition from the natural to the money economy, the need for money was great. Since agricultural loans were not still regulated, the money could only be requested from usurers. Thanks to that, the usurers become richer and peasants perished. Therefore, the state begins to take certain legal measures, first in the field of civil law and after that in the field of criminal law. In the Principality and Kingdom of Serbia, the range of civil law measures was rich, while the criminal law reaction of the state against usurer services was modest. However, with the creation of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, and due to the process of unifications, the focus of the state actions on usurer services is shifted from civil to criminal law.

US Copyright Infringement by File “Sharing”: Statutory Damage(s)

2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Arthur Kuppers
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
File Sharing ◽  
Copyright Infringement ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Punitive Damages ◽  
Copyright Holder ◽  
Call To Action ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Comprehensive Examination ◽  
The Usa

AbstractFor the sake of argument, not that this is something that you would necessarily do, picture yourself living in the USA, finally getting hold that elusive song you have been wanting for so long - via an unlicensed file sharing service. Your initial feeling of euphoria would rather quickly give way to that of concern since you are now liable for at least 750 USD in ‘regular’ statutory damages for copyright infringement - were the plaintiff copyright holder to elect to recover this statutory minimum amount from you. It would most likely cross your mind that that level of recovery alone by the plaintiff is not entirely compensatory.This article will thus seek to examine problems associated with statutory damages in US copyright law for copyright infringement by file sharing, in particular their punitive character. In order to facilitate a close and comprehensive examination of the issues involved, relevant provisions in US copyright law will be briefly highlighted. This will provide the context for an analysis and application of US Supreme Court jurisprudence relating to punitive damages, which will summarily be followed by a call to action and recommendations in this regard.

scholarly journals PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM TERHADAP HAK TERKAIT PRODUSER FONOGRAM ATAS MECHANICAL RIGHTS FONOGRAM YANG DIKOMERSILKAN OLEH PIHAK LAIN

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 55
Author(s):  
Usak Usak
Keyword(s):  
Legal Protection ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Exclusive Right

<p><strong>Abstrak</strong></p><p>Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk mengkaji perlindungan hukum terhadap hak terkait produser fonogram atas mechanical rights fonogram yang dikomersilkan oleh pihak lain dalam ranah Hukum Hak Cipta di Indonesia. Isu hukum yang sering terjadi adalah mechanical rights milik produser fonogram sering dilanggar oleh pihak lain yang bukan pemegang mechanical rights atau tidak mendapatkan ijin secara langsung dari pemegang mechanical rights. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian hukum. Mechanical rights fonogram terkait dengan penggandaan atau reproduksi fonogram. Produser fonogram mempunyai hak eksklusif untuk memberi ijin reproduksi langsung atau tidak langsung fonogramnya, dengan berbagai cara atau bentuk. Mechanical rights identik dengan Hak Terkait yang merupakan hak eksklusif produser fonogram. Undang-Undang Hak Cipta di Indonesia mampu memberikan perlindungan hukum terhadap hak terkait produser fonogram atas mechanical rights fonogram yang dikomersilkan oleh pihak lain.</p><p><strong>Abstract</strong><br />The purpose of this study was about to examine the legal protection of neighboring rights producers of phonograms on phonograms of mechanical rights which commercialized by other parties in the realm of copyright law in Indonesia. Legal issues that often occurs is mechanical rights belong producers of phonograms often violated by others who are not holders of mechanical rights or do not get permission directly from the holders of mechanical rights. This study uses legal research. Mechanical rights on phonograms relating to procurement or reproduction of a phonogram. Producers of phonograms shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing the direct or indirect reproduction of their phonograms, in any manner or form. Mechanical rights on phonograms synonymous with “Neighboring Rights” is an exclusive right of producers of phonograms. Copyright Law in Indonesia able to provide legal protection of neighboring rights producers of phonograms on phonograms of mechanical rights which commercialized by other parties.</p>

scholarly journals PENGATURAN PERLINDUNGAN HAK CIPTA PERMAINAN VIDEO

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (8) ◽  
pp. 1129
Author(s):  
Nusan Indah Permata Sari ◽  
Anak Agung Gede Agung Dharma Kusuma
Keyword(s):  
Video Games ◽  
Scientific Journal ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Moral Rights ◽  
Copyright Holder ◽  
Economic Rights ◽  
Know How ◽  
Commercial Activities ◽  
Copyright Laws

Tujuan penulisan jurnal ilmiah ini adalah untuk mengetahui pengaturan permainan video dalam Undang-Undang Hak Cipta dan mengetahui bagaimana perlindungan hukum hak cipta terhadap pelanggaran permainan video. Tulisan ini menggunakan metode penelitian hukum normatif dengan menggunakan pendekatan perundang-undangan. Hasil dari penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa terdapat kekaburan norma pada Undang-Undang Hak Cipta yaitu pada ketentuan pasal 40 ayat (1) huruf r “permainan video”. Kekaburan norma ini terlihat jelas karena tidak adanya penjelasan lebih lanjut terkait dengan pengertian permainan video serta pengklasifikasiannya. Selain itu terlihat jelas pula bahwa terdapat kekosongan norma terkait dengan sanksi bagi pelanggar hak moral pencipta yang tidak dilakukan tidak untuk kegiatan komersiil. Selanjutnya kesimpulan kedua bahwa permainan video merupakan salah satu objek dari suatu ciptaan yang dilindungi oleh Undang-Undang Hak Cipta yang perlindungannya berlaku selama 50 tahun sejak permainan video tersebut dipublikasikan.  Berdasarkan ketentuan pasal 95 Undang-Undang Hak Cipta, pencipta atau pemegang hak cipta atau ahli waris dari pencipta permainan video dapat mengajukan tuntutan ganti rugi ke Pengadilan Niaga kepada pelaku pelanggaran hak ekonomi pencipta permainan video.   The purpose of this scientific journal is to know the rules of the video games in the Copyright law and to know how the copyright legal protection against video games violations. In this paper, the research method used is normative legal research which uses a statutory approach. The result of this journal are indicate there is a blurry norm in Article 40 paragraph letter r of Copyright law. The ambiguity of norm is cleary seen because there is no further explanation related to the understanding of video games and their classification and it is also cleary that there are void norm related to sanction for violators of the creator’s moral rights wich are not carried out not for commercial activities. Then, the second conclusions is that video games are one of the object of a creation that get protection from Copyright laws, the protection os valid for 50 years since the video games was published. Based on the Article 95 of Copyright law, the creator or copyright holder or the heirs of creator of video games can submit compensations claims to the Commersial Court to the perpretators of violations of the economic rights of the video games creator’s.

scholarly journals So Dark the Con(tu) of Man: The Quest for a Software Derivative Work Right in Section 117

2007 ◽  
Vol 69 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lateef Mtima
Keyword(s):  
Computer Software ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Copyright Holder ◽  
User Adaptation ◽  
New Public ◽  
Derivative Work ◽  
Software Programs ◽  
Exclusive Right ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Judicial Recognition

Computer software programs have various unique characteristics as copyrightable works. Among other things, unlike traditional copyrightable works, it is necessary to copy and often to modify software programs in order to use them. In addition, as functional works, the development of additional programs, an overarching goal of copyright protection, often requires the “efficient reuse” of protected elements of preexisting programs. The copyright law currently provides an ambiguous and contradictory response to these issues. While section 117 of the Copyright Act provides program users with the privilege to prepare “adaptations” of copyrighted programs, section 106 reserves to copyright holders the exclusive right to prepare derivative versions of their programs. This article proposes that user adaptation privileges can be distinguished from, and reconciled with, copyright holder derivative work exclusive rights by virtue of the impact that a user-prepared adaptation will have upon the market for the original copyrighted program: “market benign” adaptations should be treated as privileged adaptations, while “market pernicious” adaptations should be treated as derivative works and therefore, subject to the rights of the copyright holder in the original program.In addition, the “practical-use versus market-impact” balancing rationale used to draw the foregoing distinction can also be used to reconstruct the traditional derivative work right into a narrower “software derivative work right.” This software derivative work right would limit the copyright holder’s exclusive right to that of creating derivative programs that are likely to compete with, or otherwise have an undue impact on the market for, the original copyrighted software program. This would enable judicial recognition of a new “public derivative work privilege” to create non-competitive derivative software programs from preexisting works.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document