<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Media Missteps: 5 Intellectual Property Blunders to Avoid The government’s efforts to remove Indonesia from the US investment blocklist published by the United States Trade Representative (USTR) through the 2023 Priority Watch List (PWL) are heavy. Apart from improving regulations and law enforcement efforts, education regarding the importance of Intellectual Property must continue to be carried out on a massive scale. Unfortunately, the big media, which should take that role, often become part of the piracy. Finally, the media is the party that must be educated earlier so that this education can resonate more with society. The following are five major media sins that we often encounter in their reporting: 1.\u00a0 \u00a0 Using the Word “Patent” for Every Intellectual Property Regime Because the Indonesian Dictionary (KBBI) still describes Patent as “a right given by the government to someone for an invention for their use and to protect it from imitation (piracy),” this word is still often used as a substitute for Intellectual Property. Patents are only one of the various types of intellectual property; that means the description from the KBBI is different from what is stated in Law No. 14 of 2001 concerning Patents. This misconception has resulted in the narrative of “patenting a trademark” or “patenting various food recipes,” which we commonly hear in large or small media coverage. Previously, we published a short article regarding the differences between Patents and other Intellectual Property here: Patented Trademark? Registering Copyright? What Are The Correct Terms? 2.\u00a0 \u00a0 Reporting Piracy, but Showing the Source Several media already have good intentions in warning the public not to access materials such as films or music that we should only be able to enjoy in cinemas or official streaming channels through illegal sites. However, in its reporting, the media displayed a screenshot containing the address of the illicit site. This is a blunder because it lures more of the public into accessing it. Such coverage can also be considered as dissemination of illegal material and can be subject to criminal sanctions as regulated in Article 113 of the Copyright Law. Therefore, keep good intentions from ending up causing problems. 3.\u00a0 \u00a0 Unauthorized Use of Material Dozens of years ago, when YouTube became increasingly popular and became a source of information with attractive visuals, TV media competed to use it as material for new programs, which they thought were unique for their loyal viewers: People live in remote areas and still have difficulty accessing the internet. The media’s opinion then was, “Everything on the internet means the public can access it so that it can be used commercially for free.” This contradicts Article 8 of the Copyright Law, which states that only the creator or, in this case, the creator\/ photographer\/ original video maker has the right to Economic Rights over his creation. In other words, if the media wants to make a TV program based on these works, let alone get advertising from their broadcast, they must obtain permission from the creator. Even platforms like YouTube are subject to Copyright Laws. The Terms of Service state that any violations can be followed up with applicable legal processes. Assuming that each work can still be used freely under “fair use” will not apply if the creator objects. Currently, although the media is more aware of copyright issues by including the address of the original material, this is only a justification for publishing it with permission. So, to avoid lawsuits in the future, please make sure to first ask permission from the owner of the material you want to use as coverage\/program material. 4.\u00a0 \u00a0 Overclaim on YouTube When mainstream media began to use YouTube as an additional source of income, they also uploaded all their programs and coverage on that streaming channel so that viewers could watch the material anytime, anywhere. Based on legality and high viewership, YouTube also indirectly gives confidence that every material uploaded by them is considered to have “strong copyright protections.” This becomes dangerous when the media uploads material that does not belong to them. For example, when making a report or interviewing a content creator. To make the visuals attractive, the media will display a few minutes of video insert made by the creator. The creator had long published the video on YouTube. Still, after the media uploaded its coverage program containing part of the video, the creator’s video was deemed to have violated copyright. This has happened several times and has gone viral on social media. Luckily, cases like this do not result in criminal charges because they can be resolved by turning off copyright protection on videos uploaded by the media. 5.\u00a0 \u00a0 Glorification of Intellectual Property Violations This last sin can be said to be the one we encounter most often, which indirectly maintains violation activities to continue to occur in Indonesia. In the name of “Good News,” media reports often feature success stories from Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) in rural areas. However, the problem is the business activities carried out by these SMEs violate Intellectual Property. For example, making handicraft products, fabrics, or clothing that utilize popular characters from abroad without permission. The media proudly described their huge income as an \u201cinspirational success story.\u201d For those of us who understand this condition, it will undoubtedly be uncomfortable because the media reporters who cover these activities should be able to spearhead efforts to educate the public regarding Intellectual Property awareness. Please don’t use other people’s protected characters again when their production numbers are already high. It’s time to produce original characters, which are not impossible to provide added value for SMEs. By ignoring it, the media endangers these SMEs by positioning them as open shooting targets for the actual IP owners. With the news of the enormous income generated, the original owner will file a lawsuit at the highest level, and whose fault is that? That’s all the five significant media sins we see frequently today. Hopefully,…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":4333,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[81],"tags":[16,35,43,48,51,57,58,68,76,77,79,91,104],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/affa.co.id\/global\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4330"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/affa.co.id\/global\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/affa.co.id\/global\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/affa.co.id\/global\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/affa.co.id\/global\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4330"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/affa.co.id\/global\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4330\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4332,"href":"https:\/\/affa.co.id\/global\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4330\/revisions\/4332"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/affa.co.id\/global\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4333"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/affa.co.id\/global\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4330"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/affa.co.id\/global\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4330"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/affa.co.id\/global\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4330"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}