<![CDATA[Rr Bebitha Putri Hanyra, M. Zairul Alam, Diah Pawestri Maharani Fakultas Hukum Universitas Brawijaya Jl. MT. Haryono No. 169 Malang e-mail: bithanyra@student.ub.ac.id Abstrak Dalam Pasal 1 Angka 13 Undang – Undang Nomor 28 Tahun 2014 Tentang Hak Cipta, tercantum pengertian terkait fiksasi. Pada pasal tersebut, tertulis definisi fiksasi yang hanya mencakup 2 jenis ciptaan yaitu suara dan gambar ataupun keduanya. Hal ini tentunya bertentangan dengan pengertian fiksasi dalam hak cipta internasional yang tidak membatasi fiksasi hanya kedua jenis ciptaan seperti yang tercantum dalam Berne Convention. Maka dari itu, terdapat ketidaklengkapan hukum dalam Undang-Undang Hak Cipta Indonesia.Terdapat dua rumusan masalah yaitu (1) Bagaimana analisis ruang lingkup prinsip pengaturan fiksasi dalam hak cipta menurut pasal 1 angka 13 UU Hak Cipta No 28 Tahun 2014 tentang Hak Cipta sebagai salah satu syarat perlindungan karya cipta, dan (2) Bagaimana pengaturan yang tepat terkait pengertian fiksasi terhadap karya cipta berdasarkan perbandingan UU Hak Cipta Indonesia dan United States Copyright Act 1976 Code Title 17. Berdasarkan analisis permasalahan yang ada bahwa di Indonesia menggunakan fiksasi sebagai syarat perlindungan hak cipta. Hanya saja definisi fiksasi yang ada di Indonesia diperoleh dari WIPO Phonograms Treaty, yang mana perjanjian internasional tersebut hanya mencakup ciptaan pertunjukan dan fonogram. Penelitian juga menemukan bahwa pengaturan fiksasi di Amerika Serikat mencakup seluruh ciptaan. Kata Kunci: hak cipta, fiksasi, ciptaan Abstract Article 1 Point 13 of Law Number 28 of 2014 concerning Copyright mentions fixation—an expression of an idea into a real or tangible form. This article, however, mentions the definition of fixation that only involves two types of creation such as sound and picture, or both of them. This condition certainly contravenes the definition of fixation in international copyrights, where fixation is not restricted only to these two kinds, as outlined in the Berne Convention. This restricted scope in terms of the definition of the article seems to be the center of the problem discussed in this research. Therefore, there is an incompleteness of law in defining fixation in Copyright Law in Indonesia. Departing from this issue, this research aims to investigate two research problems: (1) the analysis of the scope of the principle regarding the regulation of fixation in copyrights according to Article 1 Point 13 of Copyright Law Number 28 of 2014 concerning Copyrights as one of the requirements to protect copyrights, and (2) the proper regulation regarding the definition of fixation of copyrights according to the comparison of Copyright Law and the United States Copyright Act 1976 United States Code Title 17. This research employs a normative-juridical method and statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches. Primary, secondary, and tertiary materials were used and analyzed using grammatical, systematic, and comparative interpretations.The research results reveal that Indonesia refers to fixation as the requirement to protect copyrights. However, its definition in Indonesia was adopted from WIPO Performance and Phonograms Treaty, in which this international agreement only involves performances and phonograms. This research also finds that the regulation of fixation in the US involves all creation that also applies in Indonesia to prevent infringement of copyrights that may happen in the future. Keywords: copyright, fixation, works]]>
Copyrights © 2023
