Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search
Journal : Lex Scientia Law Review

Enhancing Fair Use in Protecting Appropriated Artworks: A Comparative Analysis of Safeguarding Indonesian Copyright Law Nadya Aurelia, Caitlynn; Tanaya, Velliana; Sugianto, Fajar; Yamamoto, Atsuko
Lex Scientia Law Review Vol. 9 No. 1 (2025): May, 2025: Law, Technology, and Globalization: Challenges and Innovations in th
Publisher : Universitas Negeri Semarang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.15294/lslr.v9i1.20570

Abstract

Appropriated artwork refers to the practice of using pre-existing objects or images into new works of art with little or no significant changes to the original form. This trend developed into the Pop Art movement, where one of the characteristic features was the use of images from mass media, as seen in the works of Andy Warhol, including the transformation of Campbell's soup cans into iconic works of art. Although widely appreciated, this work has drawn criticism regarding copyright infringement, raising the question: where do one artist's rights draw on another? To what extent is the appropriation of copyright protected works considered legal without violating the rights of the original creator? The research results show that the two legal systems differ significantly in the aspects of exclusive rights, moral rights, protected works, exceptions, and duration of protection. The challenge in understanding fair use lies in determining the boundaries between the rights of one artist and another. The fair use doctrine assesses four main factors: the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the original work, the proportion of the work used, and the impact on the market. Courts in the US often favor fair use if elements of transformation are identified, measuring the extent to which the appropriated work carries elements of originality or new creativity. Indonesia could consider adopting the fair use doctrine by adapting the concept through ministerial regulations or other implementing regulations.
The Extended Nature of Trading Norms Between Cryptocurrency and Crypto-asset: Evidence from Indonesia and Japan Sugianto, Fajar; Tokuyama, Shintaro
Lex Scientia Law Review Vol. 8 No. 1 (2024): Contemporary Legal Challenges and Solutions in a Global Context
Publisher : Universitas Negeri Semarang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.15294/lslr.v8i1.14063

Abstract

This article is evidently about the comparison between Indonesia and Japan and their views on Crypto as a commodity. It starts with a brief elaboration on the legal standing of cryptocurrency in Indonesia and Japan. In Indonesia, Cryptocurrency is legal only as a commodity as the Ministry of Trade Regulation No. 99 of 2018 formally authorized crypto asset trading and decreed it lawful. The Indonesian Commodity Futures Trading Supervisory Authority, or BAPPEBTI, published Regulation No. 5 of 2019 to provide a thorough regulatory framework for the crypto-assets future. In Japan, there is no omnibus law regulating blockchain based coins and the legal status of tokens are determined under the uses and functions. News outlets report that there may be in talks of a law of the possibility of the seizure of crypto that has been stolen or has been illegally acquired by organized crime due to the law of the type of assets that can be seized are physical property, monetary claims, and movable assets such as machinery, vehicles, tools, and supplies, with crypto falling under none of those categories. The conclusions are, first, Indonesia has vastly improved its Cryptocurrency regulations with BAPPEBTI’s Regulation No. 8 of 2021. with the implementation of (a) licensing requirements; (b) rights and obligations; and (c) the responsibilities of key players involved in the physical crypto-asset market, such as futures exchanges, crypto asset traders, futures clearing agencies, and crypto-asset storage providers. Second, Indonesia’s regulations almost mirror itself with Japan’s behavior towards crypto, with differences only arising in the specific percentages of storage, equity, and infrastructure.