Template talk:PD-IDGov

  UNESCO has a translation of the law quoted in this template which may be useful for comparison and clarification. —xyzzy_n 19:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I've reworded it. Indon 15:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Indonesian

Problematic clause "publication and/or reproduction of anything which is published by or on behalf of the government, except if the copyright is declared to be protected by law or regulation or by a statement on the work itself or at the time the work is published;" might get more than 2.000 files get deleted from Commons because it was taken from government websites, and almost all government websites put © mark on their footer.

Discuss it at Commons:Village_pump#All_Indonesian_government_pictures_are_copyvio permalink. Bennylin (yes?) 23:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Now found at Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2015/01#All_Indonesian_government_pictures_are_copyvio. --MGA73 (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Outdated

I have been notified on w:Talk:Joko Widodo that the law referred to in this template, may be outdated. While I can confirm that there is an identically named law from 2014 (Undang-undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 28 Tahun 2014 Tentang Hak Cipta), my knowledge of Indonesian is too insufficient to read complex juridical texts. Therefore I do not know to what extent things have changed for governmental pictures. - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Copyright law of 2014

I think I have found the © exceptions that are related to this template: Article 43 (Pasal 43) in the link provided in my post above. In Indonesian, it says:

Perbuatan yang tidak dianggap sebagai pelanggaran Hak Cipta meliputi:

1. Pengumuman, Pendistribusian, Komunikasi, dan/atau Penggandaan lambang negara dan lagu kebangsaan menurut sifatnya yang asli;
2. Pengumuman, Pendistribusian, Komunikasi, dan/atau Penggandaan segala sesuatu yang dilaksanakan oleh atau atas nama pemerintah, kecuali dinyatakan dilindungi oleh peraturan perundang-undangan, penyataan pada Ciptaan tersebut, atau ketika terhadap Ciptaan tersebut dilakukan Pengumuman, Pendistribusian, Komunikasi, dan/atau Penggandaan;
3. pengambilan berita aktual, baik seluruhnya maupun sebagian dari kantor berita, Lembaga Penyiaran, dan surat kabar atau sumber sejenis lainnya dengan ketentuan sumbernya harus disebutkan secara lengkap; atau
4. pembuatan dan penyebarluasan konten Hak Cipta melalui media teknologi informasi dan komunikasi yang bersifat tidak komersial dan/atau menguntungkan Pencipta atau pihak terkait, atau Pencipta tersebut menyatakan tidak keberatan atas pembuatan dan penyebarluasan tersebut.
5. Penggandaan, Pengumuman, dan/atau Pendistribusian Potret Presiden, Wakil Presiden, mantan Presiden, mantan Wakil Presiden, Pahlawan Nasional, pimpinan lembaga negara, pimpinan kementerian/lembaga pemerintah non kementerian, dan/atau kepala daerah dengan memperhatikan martabat dan kewajaran sesuai dengan ketentuan peraturan perundang-undangan.

Most notably, the final point speaks about how governmental portraits are exempt from the copyright law. - HyperGaruda (talk) 07:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

You can download the new law here. Can someone update the template? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

It does not say that they are exempt from copyright law -- this is apparently like most FOP laws -- the work is copyrighted, but using it for certain purposes is not infringement.

5) Duplication, Announcement, and / or Distribution of a Portrait of the President, Vice President, former President, former Vice President, National Hero, head of state institution, head of ministry / non-ministerial government institution and / or head of region with due regard to dignity and fairness legislation.

translator: Google

That says nothing about commercial use or derivative works, so I am inclined to believe that we cannot use it to keep images that we could not keep without it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

If duplication is not allowed, and not restricted to non-commercial, that generally means that commercial use is allowed as well. The law would have to explicitly state it was restricted to non-commercial uses. Derivative works... unsure. That would depend on the meaning of the word translated as "duplication" there. Derivative works by nature do reproduce some of the original expression, but it's possible that phrase is basically allowing strict duplication but not derivative works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I emailed the government office in Indonesia which handles copyright about this, I hope they would answer my email. ★Poyekhali 04:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

UPDATE: It seems the copyright office doesn't accept any Gmail emails. So we can't get any clarification from the Indonesian Copyright Office. ★Poyekhali 00:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Poyekhali: The irony is: they are using a Gmail account themselves, if it is indeed the DJKI that we are talking about. --HyperGaruda (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

The problem here is that the license has to allow derivative works that are parodies or other political statements that put the subject in a bad light. Governments rarely want to allow that, so they usually restrict derivative works. "with due regard to dignity and fairness" speaks directly to this issue and prevents use in parody or negative political comment. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: From what I see from Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Indonesia derivative works allowed from the definition of "reproduction" ("perbanyakan"). At the current law it use different but similar word "duplication" ("penggandaan") that have the same definition. Hddty. (talk) 12:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

That may be, but, as I said above, the words translated as "with due regard to dignity and fairness" prevent use of an image in parody or political attack ads and, therefore, prevent use on Commons. Commons images must be free for any use whatsoever without any regard for dignity or fairness. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Hddty. and Jameslwoodward: I am in doubt as to which side is right. On one hand, we've got Commons:Non-copyright restrictions, including this moral rights clause and which "are not grounds for deletion of works from Commons". On the other "with due regard to dignity and fairness" restricts the freedom of use required by the definition of free content. Additionally, 43.5 does not explicitly mention commercial use and derivatives (=heavily modifying the original, not just plain copying) of these government portraits, where I have always assumed that copyright is restrictive unless explicitly mentioned otherwise. In this respect, I am leaning towards "not permissible on Commons", but they may be still allowed on some local Wikipedias as fair use. --HyperGaruda (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Aside from dispute on definition of "penggandaan", Can someone update the template? since the law is outdated and already replaced Indonesia Copyright Law No 28, 2014. as Hanif Al Husaini mentioned, you can download the new law here. --Ckfasdf (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

please update the Indonesian Copyright Law, Harsa.wr (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Link broken

Can the link be changed to this link from Wayback Machine? The current URL one is broken. George Ho (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

the url to Indonesian Copyright Law in Unesco Website is broken, please update this, and you should change the law to the newest, UU No. 28 Tahun 2014 tentang Hak Cipta Harsa.wr (talk) 03:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I have updated the templates in English and Indonesian, but I did not dare touch the other languages because I do not speak them. --HyperGaruda (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Fix broken link

The external link to the copyright is broken. Consider replacing it with https://archive.org/details/Law-ID-No-28-of-2014/page/n17/mode/2up.—Bagumba (talk) 07:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done in Special:Diff/719313068 (English), Special:Diff/719313074 (Arabic) and Special:Diff/719313085 (Japanese). --TKsdik8900 (talk) 06:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

References to recent discussions

• Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/12#Indonesia public domain
• Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2026/03#Template:PD-IDGov template name in relation to COM:NOP Indonesia
• Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2026/04#PD-IDGov again - April 2026 discussion (no comments and responses, though)

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 08:30, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

This law cited in this template doesn't work the way it has being applied. I'm going to quote myself:

That template reminds us that the government wasn't infringing when it published that photo ("[a]cts [...] executed by or on behalf of the government"). Article 43 is explicitly about the act of publication, distribution, communication and/or reproduction, not the product of those acts. (Even though in English we might say that the act of "publication" generates a product called a "publication", the law is referring only to the act. We can see that by looking at how articles 41 and 42 refer to "works" instead.) Commons is hosting the product, and would purport to offer it freely, but it is not empowered to do so by article 43, because it is not the government of Indonesia or acting on its behalf.

I think User:Mdaniels5757 was basically right:

By contrast, Article 43 begins "Acts that are not considered as Copyright infringements include". As you note, this makes clear that this is effectively a limited license to do certain acts, not a statement that any works are in the public domain (i.e. free of copyright).

I realize that means that this template is almost useless. (But Category:PD Indonesian Government has other sources of categorization, and probably isn't useless) TheFeds 10:37, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@TheFeds maybe. I provided the link to the copy of the English text of the law as provided by Abu Ghazalah Intellectual Property. There is an explanation for Article 43(b), found at page 70 of the document (or page 15 of the section): The term "Any Publication, Distribution, Communication, and/or Reproduction which is conducted by or on behalf of the government" means, for example, Publication, Distribution, Communication, and/or any Reproduction done by or on behalf of the government with respect to the results of research conducted at State expenses.

For the Indonesian one (via this): Yang dimaksud dengan "Pengumuman, Pendistribusian, Komunikasi, dan/atau Penggandaan segala sesuatu yang dilaksanakan oleh atau atas nama pemerintah" misalnya, Pengumuman, Pendistribusian, Komunikasi, dan/atau Penggandaan segala sesuatu yang dilaksanakan oleh atau atas nama pemerintah terhadap hasil riset yang dilakukan dengan biaya negara.. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:20, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@TheFeds the most compelling is the footer at the website of the Indonesian government itself: "Copyright © Indonesia.go.id 2025." This means the website isn't in the public domain. Put together, the Indonesian government works aren't really in the public domain, contrary to what both COM:Indonesia and this template says. At the very least, template should be moved to {{Copyrighted free use-IDGov}}, similar to {{Copyrighted free use}} and {{Copyrighted free use-Taiwan-art}}. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:09, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

That's a good point: it is notice that the government believes it is at least theoretically possible to infringe the copyright of something that is unambiguously a government work. (I don't even know if they're right about it—governments are people too, and people make mistakes or have misconceptions. But this is the front page of the government's website, so I think we can assume that it has passed at least cursory legal review by someone who ought to know.) TheFeds 02:32, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

So instead of "this is a government work, so anyone else can re-use it", we should interpret 43b merely as "the government can freely re-use anything"? --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:09, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Basically yes; the government has substantial legal protection against liability for infringement—possibly of anything if it lacks any relevant limiting statement. The exact parameters of the exception is not quite clear from the English text (I'd referenced a different translation than above). TheFeds 01:00, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Supposedly, 43a (national emblem + anthem) and 43e (specific government portraits) are still valid "licenses". We should then a) remove 43b from the template, and b) rename the template like JWilz suggests. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

I confess that I really don't like the way this law is structured. Maybe it's my lack of familiarity with Indonesian legal customs, but the use of a broad declaration followed by an inscrutable exception seems like a ridiculous choice. Assuming of course, that this is incompetence, not malice, which it well could be: emblems/anthem "in accordance with their original nature" and government portraits "taking into account the dignity and appropriateness" seem to benefit the state and the authorities by introducing concepts not germane to intellectual property into the test for copyright infringement. I'm leaning toward that (without further qualification) being not free enough for Commons, because we lack a way to determine which works fall under the original nature/dignity/appropriateness exceptions. (Could this be read like an ND clause in a CC licence?) TheFeds 00:36, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

It is something I wondered about as well back in 2017. The final remark at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2026/03#Template:PD-IDGov template name in relation to COM:NOP Indonesia says it's not to be interpreted as ND. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:06, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

@TheFeds I assume it's more of a moral rights enforcement. I have a hunch that Indonesia has very strong emphasis on the integrity and proper use of works of art. Of all larger countries, the US is the only outlier as their copyright law (1976 Copyright Act/Title 17 of the US Code) does not grant default moral rights protection to begin with (many other Western countries grant such protections, even if they contain waiver options). The only extant moral rights-related law, VARA, only grants moral rights to artists of pictorial/graphical/sculptural works but not all other works. @HyperGaruda are Indonesian moral rights permanent or expiring at the same time as the economic rights? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 08:56, 30 September 2026 (UTC)