June 26, 2026
JAKARTA – The Legal Aid Institute for the Press (LBH Pers) has raised concerns over several provisions in the latest draft revision of the 2014 Copyright Law that may be used to criminalize journalists for their contents.
Concerns came as the House of Representatives’ Legislation Body (Baleg) resumed deliberations for the law revision, which is expected to update the regulations governing intellectual property rights, royalties and the overall creative economy.
During the harmonization process in March, Baleg members agreed to recognize journalistic works as copyrighted works. They cited calls from some journalists who argued that neither the Press Law nor the Broadcasting Law has explicitly recognized journalistic products as copyright-protected works.
But the bill’s latest draft dated March 11 that has been circulating contains provisions LBH Pers said could be used to restrict criticism of public officials and creative expression, including in journalistic works.
Among the highlighted articles is Article 55 paragraph (3), which stipulates that digital portraits of public figures may only be used for educational, cultural or commemorative purposes and must not be digitally altered in ways that “go against the subject’s dignity”.
The broad definition of “public figure portrait” could expose journalists to legal uncertainty, as they use such images as visual archives, verification tools and even mediums of criticism, said LBH Pers executive director Mustafa Layong.
“This article could then limit criticism through caricatures, memes, editorial illustrations and other forms of a portrait if they are considered ‘demeaning’ [toward public officials],” Mustafa said on Monday.
He further argued that protections for facial images and personal data were already regulated under the 2022 Personal Data Protection Law.
Provisions in the revision of the Copyright Law may lead to “overlapping” between different regulations and “overcriminalization of journalists, media outlets and creators who engage in legitimate criticism” for using the officials’ portrait, Mustafa went on to say.
LBH Pers also criticized Articles 132, 138 and 139, which carry criminal penalties for works by a person or corporation deemed against “morality, religion, decency, public order or national defense and security interests”.
Such articles, according to Mustafa, could threaten journalistic works by reporters or media companies covering defense and security issues despite its “crucial form of public oversight”.
“Investigative reporting on defense budgets, irregularities within the military, security operations or alleged violence by law enforcement officers could be construed as works that run counter to national security,” he noted.
When asked about the House’s response to LBH Pers’ concerns, Baleg chair Bob Hasan of President Prabowo Subianto’s Gerindra Party acknowledged the worries and said lawmakers remain open to inputs on the bill.
“We will invite [LBH Pers] so they can convey any provisions they consider problematic. There is still room for corrections,” Bob told The Jakarta Post on Monday, stopping short of confirming whether the circulating draft came from the House or the Law Ministry.
Dahlan Dahi, head of digital and sustainability in the Press Council, said on Tuesday concerns raised by LBH Pers were “valid”, although he stressed the council only received a limited scope of draft articles concerning journalism on the bill from the Law Ministry.
The 2014 Copyright Law made headlines in 2025 when several musicians filed a judicial review petition to challenge five articles of the regulation regarding the royalty payment mechanism for performing rights.
Among the petition’s points was a push for the court to strengthen the requirement that royalties must be processed through National Collective Management Organizations (LMKN) and clarify that event organizers of the live performances are responsible for paying royalties to copyright holders.
The justices granted some of the petitions last December, ruling that event organizers, rather than performers, should be the one who pay royalties to copyright holders for works performed on stage.
While rejecting the request to completely remove criminal penalties for unpaid royalties, the court asserted copyright violations should not be immediately treated as criminal cases and pushed to prioritize restorative justice approach first.