🔍 Read the full analysis: Indonesia’s AI Copyright Bill Puts Content Use Under Scrutiny on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get smart everyday buys delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
TL;DR
Google, Meta and TikTok raised objections to Indonesia’s proposed copyright-law revision at a parliamentary hearing on Nov. 11, according to reports. The draft would address payment for platforms’ use of news and rules for AI-generated and AI-assisted content, but its current text is not publicly confirmed and it is not yet law.
Google, Meta and TikTok challenged parts of Indonesia’s proposed copyright-law revision at a parliamentary hearing in Jakarta on Nov. 11, as lawmakers consider rules that could require payments for some uses of news content and set conditions for using copyrighted works in AI systems. The bill is still under deliberation, not enacted law, and the current draft text has not been independently confirmed.
The hearing was held by the House of Representatives’ Legislation Body, known as Baleg, which is discussing the bill with the government. Kompas reported that lawmakers also heard from the Press Council and Satu Lisensi Indonesia. The proposal revises Law No. 28 of 2014 and was approved as a parliamentary initiative at a plenary session on March 12, 2026.
Google objected to proposed payments tied to news links and snippets, a single collective licensing body, and mandatory licenses for AI training data, according to coverage by Suara and Kompas. Its representative, Agung Pamungkas, argued that requiring payment for displaying links could leave the company with “no choice” but to stop crawling, indexing and distributing Indonesian news, Reuters reported. That is Google’s stated position, not a confirmed outcome of the bill.
Meta argued that sharing a link is not the same as republishing an article and said payment duties could reduce publishers’ traffic and revenue, according to the supplied reporting. TikTok questioned disclosure requirements when AI is used only as an assistive tool and also sought continued safe-harbor protections. The companies’ objections differ, but all raise concerns about how the draft would define platform responsibility and permitted AI use.
AI Copyright Bill Under Scrutiny
Google, Meta and TikTok challenged a proposed copyright-law revision at a parliamentary hearing. The bill remains under deliberation, and its current text is unconfirmed.
Two policy questions
The proposal brings news compensation and copyright rules for AI into the same debate.
- Whether platforms should pay for some uses of news links or previews
- How compensation could affect publisher referral traffic
- How copyrighted works may be used in AI training
- When AI-assisted work must be disclosed or qualifies for protection
What platforms argued
Their objections raise different concerns about responsibility and permitted use.
Links and licensing
Objected to payments for news links and snippets, a single collective licensing body, and mandatory AI training licenses.
Referral traffic
Said sharing a link is not republishing an article and argued payment duties could reduce publishers’ traffic and revenue.
AI disclosure
Questioned disclosure when AI is used only as an assistive tool and sought continued safe-harbor protections.
The proposal’s path
What remains unsettled
The final wording will shape obligations for platforms, publishers, creators and AI developers.
- The full current draft has not been confirmed.
- AI training exceptions, licensing, and human contribution rules remain unclear.
- No parliamentary vote date was announced in the supplied reporting.
Rules Could Reshape News and AI
The draft brings two difficult policy questions into the same copyright debate: whether platforms should compensate publishers when they display or distribute news, and how creators’ works may be used to train AI. If the eventual law requires licenses or payments, it could affect the costs and operating choices of platforms and AI developers working with Indonesian content. The practical impact will depend on the final wording, enforcement and any exceptions.
Publishers and platforms describe the stakes differently. At the hearing, the Press Council said platforms account for 80 percent of digital advertising and that traffic from platforms to news sites has fallen by as much as 70 percent, according to the source material. Those figures were presented by the council; the reporting provided no independent verification or detailed methodology. Google, meanwhile, says link payments could restrict news access and distribution. The debate is therefore not only about who pays, but also about how audiences find news and whether publishers receive compensation without losing referral traffic.
For creators, the proposed AI provisions could establish whether style imitation is restricted, when AI use must be disclosed, and what level of human contribution qualifies a work for copyright protection. Those questions matter beyond Indonesia to companies using local-language material and to rights holders whose work may enter training datasets. The draft’s final definitions and any licensing or opt-out mechanisms remain central to determining the effect.
Products Worth Considering
FlexiSpot E6 Electric Standing Desk, 55 × 28 in, Bamboo Top, White Frame
HP DesignJet T650 Large Format 24‑inch Plotter Printer (5HB08T)
FLEXISPOT 36-Inch Height-Adjustable Standing Desk Converter with Keyboard Tray, Black
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
From 2014 Law to AI Provisions
The proposal would revise Indonesia’s existing copyright law, which dates to 2014. Parliament approved the revision as an initiative on March 12, 2026, and Baleg is now deliberating it with the government. The Nov. 11 hearing followed earlier discussion of the bill and brought platform representatives and media-sector groups before lawmakers.
Reuters reported on AI provisions in a draft on July 17, citing a version authenticated by Hermansyah Siregar, a law ministry official overseeing intellectual property. Siregar said generative AI had disrupted the copyright framework and described the proposal as unfinished. The July text reportedly addressed AI-assisted works, disclosure, style imitation, training data and compensation for news uses. That version is not necessarily the text now before lawmakers; the source material says the draft has changed, and the full current version was not obtained.
Indonesia already has Presidential Regulation No. 32 of 2024, which requires digital platforms to support quality journalism. At the hearing, Press Council deputy chair Totok Suryanto said the regulation had not worked as intended and platform compliance was low, according to Aktual. The proposed copyright revision is being considered alongside that existing policy, but the supplied reporting does not establish how the two frameworks would interact.
““The development of generative AI has disrupted the copyright framework.””
— Hermansyah Siregar, a law ministry official overseeing intellectual property, as quoted by Reuters
Draft Text and Scope Still Unsettled
The full version discussed on Nov. 11 was not available in the supplied reporting, and reports refer to different versions of the draft. As a result, provisions described from the July text—including rules for style imitation, AI disclosure, training licenses and sanctions—should not be treated as confirmed features of the current proposal. Google referred to Articles 29 and 30 at the hearing, but the source material cautions that article numbers may be provisional.
It is also unclear how the bill would define sufficient human involvement in an AI-assisted work, what exceptions might apply to AI training, or how any collective licensing body would operate. No announced date for a parliamentary vote was found in the source material. The reported positions of Google, Meta, TikTok and the Press Council are statements by interested parties and do not establish what lawmakers will adopt.
Lawmakers Continue Bill Deliberations
Baleg is continuing its deliberations with the government. The next relevant developments are the release or confirmation of a current draft, any revisions following the hearing, and a parliamentary timetable for further debate or a vote. No vote date was announced in the supplied reporting.
Until lawmakers publish or confirm the text, the proposal’s precise obligations and enforcement measures remain uncertain. Readers should distinguish the July draft described by Reuters from the version now under discussion, and treat company forecasts about effects on news access, publishers or AI development as attributed arguments rather than settled outcomes.
Key Questions
Has Indonesia passed the AI copyright bill?
No. The proposal is under deliberation by parliament’s Legislation Body and the government. It has not been enacted, and the source material gives no date for a vote.
What would the proposal change?
Versions reported to date address payments for certain platform uses of news, including links or previews, and copyright rules for AI training, AI-assisted works and disclosure. Because the text has changed and the current version was not available, these provisions should be treated as proposals rather than confirmed final requirements.
Why are Google, Meta and TikTok objecting?
Google opposes payments for links and snippets, a single collective licensing body and mandatory licenses for AI training data. Meta says link sharing is not republication and argues payment duties could affect publisher traffic and revenue. TikTok questions disclosure when AI only assists with content creation and wants safe-harbor protections retained.
What remains unknown about the bill?
The full current draft, its final definitions and exceptions, how any licensing system would work, and the timing of a vote are not confirmed in the supplied reporting. The reported July draft may differ from the version lawmakers are now considering.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
