Attrition of Rights: Navigating the Legal Boundary of Performances and Royalties in Indonesia

The Indonesian creative industry, particularly its music subsector, has recently been embroiled in controversies surrounding copyright infringement. There have been numerous high-profile cases, such as the dispute between singer Agnes Monica Muljoto, known as Agnez Mo, and composer Ari Sapta Hernawan, known as Ari Bias. Other past cases include singer Rieka Roslan issuing an open subpoena to prevent her former band, The Groove, from performing her songs. A similarly famous case involves producer and songwriter Ahmad Dhani and singer Elfonda Mekel, known as Once Mekel, and many more disputes have occurred over time regarding copyright infringement.

It is important to note the commonality among these cases: a conflict between creators and performers over the collection or payment of royalties. This has led to widespread questions among musicians and the public about the rights to perform, licensing, and the scope of copyright enforcement within Indonesia’s creative industry, especially in the music sector.

Copyright Law in Indonesia

Law Number 28 of 2014 concerning Copyright (“Copyright Law”) separates a creator’s rights into two main components: Moral Rights and Economic Rights. Moral Rights are perpetual rights held by the creator, including the right to have their name attributed to their work, use a pseudonym, and take legal actions if the work is distorted or modified in a way that harms their reputation. In contrast, Economic Rights are the exclusive rights of the creator or copyright holder to gain financial benefits from their work. These rights cover various actions, such as publication, reproduction, distribution, performance, broadcasting, and other commercial uses.

A key point that often sparks confusion and disputes in the music industry is the overlap in understanding between Copyright and Related Rights. Under Indonesian law, Copyright is the exclusive right of the songwriter, which encapsulates the composer and lyricist (e.g., Ari Bias, Ahmad Dhani, and Rieka Roslan). Meanwhile, Related Rights are the exclusive rights granted to those involved in the expression or realization of the work, such as performers (e.g., Agnez Mo, The Groove, Once Mekel), phonogram producers, and broadcasting organizations.

Questions arising from this, even among musicians, about “who holds the rights?” and “who is obligated to pay?” stem from a failure to clearly distinguish between these two types of rights. This situation has often pushed them to take direct legal action against those they deem responsible, often without a thorough understanding of the legal framework.

Formal Notifications and Legal Proceedings

1. Ari Bias Vs Agnez Mo
   On September 12, 2024, Ari Bias filed a civil lawsuit against Agnez Mo at the Central Jakarta Commercial Court, case number 92/PDT.SUS-HKI/CIPTA/2024/PN Niaga JKT.PST. The trial began shortly thereafter. On January 30, 2025, the court issued a verdict stating that Agnez Mo had infringed Ari Bias's copyright by performing his song “Bilang Saja” without authorization at three concerts. The court ordered Agnez Mo to pay damages of Rp1.5 billion (Rp500 million for each concert) and court fees of Rp1.58 million. Agnez Mo and her legal team filed an appeal (Kasasi) in May 2025. The Supreme Court overturned the previous court decision Agnez Mo is no longer required to pay Rp 1.5 billion in royalties to Ari Bias.
   
   
2. Ahmad Dani Vs Once Mekel
   On March 28, 2023, Ahmad Dhani, the songwriter for the band Dewa 19, banned Once Mekel from singing Dewa 19 songs. Dhani’s action was a response to Mekel never asking for permission or paying royalties for his performances. The conflict began when Dhani requested a fee of Rp10 million per song performed, while Once Mekel insisted on following government regulations for royalty collection through Lembaga Manajemen Kolektif/Collective Management Organization (“LMK”) and opposed Dhani's demand for a direct license. The dispute ended with both parties meeting to find a resolution.
   
   
3. Rieka Roslan Vs The Groove
   On May 29, 2023, Rieka Roslan officially issued an open subpoena to prevent her former band, The Groove, from performing her songs. Roslan had previously held several meetings and mediations with the band to discuss song usage permissions. In September 2022, Rieka held a mediation meeting with LMK Wahana Musik Indonesia and The Groove, where they agreed to proceed with separate management.

Legal Analysis

1. Conflict of Interpretation: Article 9(2) vs. Article 23(5)
   

   The most contentious aspect of the verdict in the Agnez Mo case, and indeed of the current Indonesian Copyright Law, is the apparent contradiction between Article 9(2) and Article 23(5). While Article 9(2) requires prior permission from the creator for exercising economic rights, Article 23(5) states that commercial use of a creation in a performance does not require prior permission if royalties are paid through Lembaga Manajemen Kolektif Nasional (“LMKN”). This inconsistency creates legal ambiguity.

   The Commercial Court's verdict, in finding Agnez Mo liable, seemed to prioritize the strict requirement of Article 9(2) over the provisions of Article 23(5). The court's reasoning suggests that even with the LMKN system in place, direct authorization from the creator remains paramount for commercial performances unless a valid license has been secured through LMKN. In this specific case, Agnez Mo's inquiry with LMKN in March 2024 confirmed there was no authorization for the song's use.

   This interpretation has drawn significant criticism and debate within the music community. Legal experts and musicians argue that this creates substantial legal uncertainty and the potential for “criminalization” of performers who may have reasonably assumed that royalty payments through LMKN would suffice. Many contend that the primary obligation for paying royalties for commercial performances should fall on the event organizer or venue, as they are the direct beneficiaries of the commercial service, rather than the individual performer.

   The inconsistency between Article 9(2) and 23(5) of the Copyright Law, reveals a fundamental systemic weakness in Indonesia's copyright licensing and royalty collection framework, which may lead to confusion, potential legal disputes to the parties involved, and lack of clarity that hinders fair compensation for creators.
   

2. Legal Basis for LMKN to Collect Royalties
   

   LMKN is a non-state budget government-aid institution formed by the Minister, which has the authority to collect, compile, and distribute royalties. It also manages the economic rights of creators and related rights holders in the field of songs and/or music.

   (For further context on LMKN, see “LMKN: Key Player in Indonesian Music Royalty Management”—a detailed review of the LMKN's responsibilities and how the institution handles copyright licensing in Indonesia.)

   In response to a number of ongoing issues and cases, and to clarify how the royalty management system can provide legal certainty for creators, holders, and related owners in exercising their economic rights, Minister of Law Regulation No. 27 of 2025 concerning Implementing Regulation to Regulation of the Government Number 56 of 2021 on the Management of Song and/or Music Copyright Royalties (“Permenhum 27/2025”) was created, which revokes Minister of Law Regulation No. 9 of 2022.

   This regulation clarifies LMKN's authority in the collection and distribution of royalties for the commercial use of works. Article 20(4) of Permenhum 27/2025 states that the obligation to pay royalties for the commercial use of songs and/or music in public services is the responsibility of the event organizer or business owner. This regulation also provides a more detailed list of which public services are considered commercial in Article 21 and Article 22. With the presence of this regulation, it is now clear that the party responsible for paying is the event organizer or business owner for the commercial use of a song.
   

3. Moving Towards a Single-Gate Music Royalty System
   The Indonesian government, in collaboration with the House of Representatives (“DPR”), has unveiled plans to revamp the national music royalty system after growing criticism from musicians, entrepreneurs, and copyright stakeholders. The centerpiece of the reform is the introduction of a unified collection mechanism, designating LMKN as the sole authorized body to handle royalty collections across the country.
   
   The reform comes in the wake of ongoing controversy, prompting a two-day hearing by the DPR on August 20–21, 2025. The sessions brought together key figures, including the Minister of Law and Human Rights, the Minister of Culture, LMKN officials, and various stakeholder groups. Several significant outcomes emerged; all geared toward making the royalty framework more efficient and transparent.
   
   A key resolution was the consolidation of all royalty collection activities under LMKN’s authority. This move effectively discontinues the use of multiple collection organizations, aiming to enhance transparency, avoid duplicate charges, and ensure legal certainty for both creators and users of music.
   
   To support this effort, a new digital platform is in development. The proposed “one-gate” system will allow businesses, event organizers, and other users of music to conveniently calculate, pay, and monitor royalty payments in one centralized application. The initiative is expected to ease compliance and improve fair compensation for artists.
   
   Additionally, the DPR has committed to amending the existing Copyright Law within the next two months. The revisions will introduce updated guidelines for managing royalties and are intended to balance the rights of creators with the needs of businesses, particularly micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs).
   
   Supratman Andi Agtas, the Minister of Law and Human Rights, underlined the importance of safeguarding creative rights without placing excessive burdens on smaller businesses such as cafes, hostels, and local venues. He highlighted the necessity of ensuring that regulations support both economic development and artistic innovation.
   
   

Conclusion

The recent legal disputes in Indonesia’s music industry have created legal ambiguities under the Copyright Law. At the heart of the issue lies a tension between Article 9(2), which requires direct authorization from the creator, and Article 23(5), which suggests that royalty payments through LMKN are sufficient. 

This uncertainty has been substantially addressed with the introduction of Permenhum 27/2025, which clearly assigns the responsibility of royalty payments for commercial song usage to event organizers or business owners, rather than performing artists. This regulation marks a crucial step toward legal certainty, helping to prevent similar disputes in the future.

Looking ahead, the government’s initiative to build a centralized, transparent, and digitalized royalty system represents a pivotal shift in Indonesia’s approach to copyright policy. By streamlining legislation and simplifying procedures, Indonesia aims to establish a more equitable and sustainable framework for all stakeholders in the music ecosystem, balancing the rights of creators with the interests of the public.

Note: The content of this article does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon since there will be implemented regulations to be further issued. The judge's opinion may also be different, due to the facts relevant to the case. If you need specific advice related to this topic, please contact us by email at info@yangandco.com.