A business owner creates logos, packaging illustrations, or advertising scripts using generative AI in just minutes. A question that rarely arises at that stage only becomes apparent months later: if a competitor uses the exact same image, is there a legal basis to prohibit it?
The answer depends on one thing: how much human intervention was involved in the creation process.
AI is a legal object, not a subject
Law Number 28 of 2014 on Copyright has been in effect since October 16, 2014, and remains valid to this day. Article 1 number 2 defines a creator as an individual or individuals who produce a creation. The Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DJKI) states that legal entities can still be creators through other provisions, but software cannot.
In a DJKI webinar on November 17, 2025, Junior Legal Analyst Achmad Iqbal Taufiq positioned AI as a legal object, not a legal subject, meaning AI cannot be classified as a creator. The consequences are often surprising: works that are entirely generated by AI without human creative contribution are not protected by copyright and automatically enter the public domain. This means anyone can use them.
During a Hearing Meeting with Commission XIII of the Indonesian House of Representatives on May 26, 2026, Director General of Intellectual Property Hermansyah Siregar presented a transition policy: purely AI-generated works will not be registered, while collaborative works that use AI as a tool can still be protected as long as there is significant human intellectual contribution.
Four determining questions
In the same webinar, legal practitioner Ari Juliano introduced a four-step test to assess whether a work has sufficient originality to be claimed as a human creation:
- The design or prompt is created by the individual themselves.
- Corrections are made to the output of the AI work.
- The result falls into the category of art, literature, or science that is protected by copyright.
- The work exhibits distinctive and personal characteristics of the designer.
If all four elements are met, the work is classified as AI assisted and can still be protected by copyright.
Fast registration letters are not absolute proof of ownership
Copyright in Indonesia adheres to a declarative principle. On January 7, 2026, Hermansyah explained that protection arises automatically as soon as a work is realized in a tangible form that can be seen or heard. The state does not grant copyright but recognizes rights that are already inherent to the creator. Therefore, the registration letter serves as initial proof of ownership, not as the source of the rights.
The difference is clear when compared to trademarks and patents. Both adhere to a constitutive principle and are substantively examined before approval. The Automatic Copyright Registration Approval Service, on the other hand, issues registration letters quickly as long as the administrative requirements are met, namely the identity of the applicant, a declaration letter, and a sample of the creation. Quick here means the administration is complete, not that the content of the claim has been tested.
What determines in the event of a dispute is the trace of the creative process: draft prompts, raw outputs, revised versions, and dates of work. DJKI itself encourages documentation of the creative process as evidence of human contribution.
Two protection duration figures to remember: the lifetime of the creator plus 70 years, while computer programs are protected for 50 years from the date of first publication.
Regulations are evolving
The government is drafting a Copyright Bill that targets three main issues: regulation of AI training data, legal status of AI-based works, and labeling obligations for AI-generated content. There are also plans for norms requiring the use of training data for commercial purposes to obtain licenses and provide compensation to copyright holders, as well as discussions on Collective Management Organizations as intermediaries.
On the enforcement side, the Constitutional Court through Decision Number 84/PUU-XXI/2023 has expanded the prohibition in Article 10 to include digital service platforms based on user-generated content, no longer limited to physical trade place managers. From January 1, 2025, to May 11, 2026, DJKI, along with related ministries, closed 1,004 pirated websites.
Two inexpensive and useful habits
First, read the terms of service of the AI you are using, especially the section on ownership of outputs and legal responsibilities if the outputs infringe on the rights of others. Second, keep a record of your work process, including the initial prompt, raw outputs, and edited versions.
Until there are clear regulations governing generative works, these two habits will distinguish claims that can be upheld from those that are merely in the form of a letter.
Sources
- Directorate General of Intellectual Property, "AI-Based Works, Who Owns Them?", November 17, 2025, dgip.go.id
- Directorate General of Intellectual Property, "Government: AI Is Not a Substitute for Humans in Creating Works", May 26, 2026, dgip.go.id
- Directorate General of Intellectual Property, "Reasons Copyright Is Registered, While Trademarks and Patents Must Be Filed", January 7, 2026, dgip.go.id
- Directorate General of Intellectual Property, Frequently Asked Questions on General Copyright, dgip.go.id
- Legal Information Network of the Indonesian House of Representatives, Law Number 28 of 2014 on Copyright along with the Constitutional Court Decision Number 84/PUU-XXI/2023, peraturan.bpk.go.id