🔍 Read the full analysis: Indonesia’s AI Copyright Proposal: Why Major Platforms Are Speaking Up on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get the latest gadgets 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 at an Indonesian parliamentary hearing on Nov. 11 about a proposed copyright-law revision covering news links, platform payments and AI. The proposal remains under discussion, its current text was not available, and no vote date has been announced.
Google, Meta and TikTok challenged parts of Indonesia’s proposed copyright-law revision at a parliamentary hearing in Jakarta on Nov. 11, objecting to provisions they say could require payments for news links and impose broad rules on AI training and content. The bill is still under deliberation and is not law; its current text and a date for a parliamentary vote remain unclear.
The proposal would revise Law No. 28 of 2014, Indonesia’s copyright law. Parliament approved the revision as a legislative initiative on March 12, 2026, and its Legislation Body, known as Baleg, is now discussing it with the government. At the Nov. 11 hearing, Baleg heard from the three platforms, the Press Council and Satu Lisensi Indonesia, according to Kompas.
Reuters reported on an earlier draft in July that would address when AI-assisted work qualifies for copyright protection, whether AI may imitate a creator’s distinctive style, disclosure of AI use and the use of copyrighted material to train models. That version also proposed payments for platforms that aggregate, republish or display news, including in link previews, and contemplated sanctions for non-compliance. The source material says the draft has changed since July, so those details should not be treated as settled features of the text now under discussion.
At the November hearing, Google opposed payments for indexing and displaying news and objected to a single collective licensing body and mandatory licenses covering AI training data. Meta argued that linking to a publisher is not the same as republishing its work and said payment duties could affect publishers’ traffic and revenue. TikTok opposed applying AI-disclosure requirements when AI is used only as an assistive tool and, like Google, called for platforms to retain safe-harbor protection.
AI copyright proposal puts platforms on record
Google, Meta and TikTok challenged parts of a proposed copyright-law revision at a parliamentary hearing. The bill remains under discussion and is not law.
What platforms challenged
Their objections focus on how the proposal could affect news access, licensing and AI development.
Links and AI licenses
Opposed potential payments for displaying news, mandatory AI-training licenses and a single collective licensing body.
Linking is not republishing
Said payment duties could affect publisher traffic and revenue.
Assistive AI disclosure
Opposed disclosure requirements when AI is used only as a creator’s assistive tool.
Earlier draft, open questions
A July draft described in reporting included proposals that may have changed since then.
The earlier draft covered AI-assisted work, style imitation, disclosure and copyrighted training material.
It proposed payments for platforms that aggregate, republish or display news, including link previews.
The full current draft is unavailable, so these reported details are not settled provisions.
Where the proposal stands
The revision of Indonesia’s Law No. 28 of 2014 is still in deliberation.
A Dispute Over News and AI Rights
The debate could shape how news publishers are paid when platforms display or direct users to their reporting, as well as the conditions for using copyrighted material in AI development. If the law requires payments for links or previews, platform operators may change how they surface Indonesian news; Google warned lawmakers it could stop crawling, indexing and distributing local news if a levy is imposed. That is the company’s stated position, not a confirmed outcome.
The proposal also puts competing interests in direct conflict. Publishers and press representatives say platforms benefit from news while publishers face declining referrals; technology companies say broad payment or licensing rules could restrict access, disrupt existing deals or make AI training impractical. The final legal language will determine whether the proposal changes those incentives, and how creators, publishers and AI developers can license or object to use of their work.
For creators, the bill’s treatment of AI-assisted work and style imitation could affect both copyright claims and disclosure expectations. But the July draft left key terms unresolved, including how much human contribution would be required for an AI-assisted work to qualify for protection. The current version’s provisions are not publicly established by the available reporting.
Popular right now
Hisense 75-Inch U7 Mini-LED ULED 4K UHD Smart Google TV (75U7SG)
Ninja AF181 Air Fryer XL, 6.5 Qt, 6-in-1, Dark Grey
Philips 2200 Series Fully Automatic Espresso Machine with Classic Milk Frother
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
From July Draft to November Hearing
Reuters reported the AI provisions on July 17, citing a draft that law ministry official Hermansyah Siregar authenticated while stressing that it was not final. He said generative AI had disrupted the copyright framework and described the proposal as a potential first explicit recognition of AI in Indonesia’s copyright law. Those comments concerned the earlier draft, not necessarily the version now before lawmakers.
Indonesia already has Presidential Regulation No. 32 of 2024, which requires digital platforms to support quality journalism. At the November hearing, Press Council deputy chair Totok Suryanto said the regulation had not worked as intended and that platform compliance was low, according to Aktual. The Press Council also told lawmakers that platforms account for 80 percent of digital advertising and that traffic from platforms to news sites has fallen by up to 70 percent. Those figures were presented by the council; the source material does not provide an independent assessment or a measurement period for the traffic claim.
The November hearing brought the disagreement into the legislative process. Google’s objections were reported by Reuters, Suara and Kompas; the Press Council’s claims were also reported by those covering the hearing. The full current draft was not available in the source reporting, which cites different versions. Article numbers mentioned in connection with the bill are consequently provisional.
““The development of generative AI has disrupted the copyright framework.””
— Hermansyah Siregar, a law ministry official, as quoted by Reuters
Key Provisions Still Unsettled
The current draft is not available in the source material, and accounts refer to different versions. It is therefore unclear whether all the measures reported from July—including rules on AI style imitation, disclosure, training licenses, news payments and sanctions—remain in the text now being deliberated, or how they may have changed.
Other open questions include what would count as sufficient human involvement in an AI-assisted work, how any exceptions or opt-outs for AI training would operate, which news displays would trigger payment, and how money would be distributed. The platforms’ objections and the Press Council’s figures are attributed positions made during the debate; neither the eventual effects of the bill nor the parties’ predictions have been independently established here.
No vote date has been announced in the supplied reporting. The proposal may change through further discussion among Baleg and the government before lawmakers consider its next formal step.
Parliament’s Next Drafting Steps
Baleg and the government are continuing deliberations on the revision. The next useful milestone will be a clearer, publicly available version of the draft, followed by any announced timetable for further hearings or a vote. Until then, claims about specific article numbers and final obligations should be treated cautiously.
Readers should watch for whether lawmakers revise the provisions on news links, collective licensing, platform safe harbors and AI training, and whether they clarify protections for human creators and disclosure rules. The source material gives no confirmed date for a vote and no final decision on the platforms’ proposals.
Key Questions
Has Indonesia passed the proposed copyright-law revision?
No. The proposal remains under deliberation by parliament’s Legislation Body and the government. It is not law.
What did Google, Meta and TikTok object to?
Google challenged potential payments for links and snippets, mandatory AI-training licenses and a single collective licensing body, and asked for safe-harbor protections. Meta argued that linking is not republishing and warned that payment duties could affect publisher traffic and revenue. TikTok said disclosure rules should not apply when AI only assists a creator and also sought safe-harbor protection.
Would the bill require platforms to pay Indonesian news publishers?
An earlier draft reported by Reuters proposed compensation for some forms of news aggregation, republication and link previews. The current text was not available in the source material, so it is unclear whether those requirements remain unchanged.
What AI rules did the earlier draft propose?
The July draft described by Reuters addressed AI-assisted copyright, style imitation, disclosure and copyrighted material used for model training. It was explicitly described as not final, and the provisions may have changed since then.
When will parliament vote on the bill?
No vote date has been announced in the available reporting. Baleg and the government are still discussing the proposal.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
