🔍 Read the full analysis: Why Indonesia’s AI Copyright Proposal Matters To Meta, TikTok And Google on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get smart everyday buys 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
Meta and TikTok joined Google in challenging a proposed revision to Indonesia’s copyright law at a parliamentary hearing on November 11, 2026. The draft could require platforms to pay publishers for displaying or using news content and introduce rules for AI training, disclosure and creator-style imitation; it is not law, and the current text and voting timetable remain unclear.
Meta and TikTok joined Google in opposing parts of Indonesia’s proposed copyright-law revision at a parliamentary hearing in Jakarta on November 11, 2026. The proposal could require digital platforms to compensate news publishers for displaying or using their content and set rules for artificial-intelligence training, making the debate consequential for major platforms, Indonesian media and AI developers. The bill remains under discussion and is not yet law.
Parliament’s Legislation Body, known as Baleg, heard from Google, Meta and TikTok, as well as the Press Council and Satu Lisensi Indonesia, according to Kompas. The measure is a parliamentary initiative to revise Law No. 28 of 2014, Indonesia’s copyright law. Parliament approved the initiative on March 12, 2026, and Baleg is deliberating it with the government.
The bill’s AI provisions first drew attention in a July draft reported by Reuters. That version proposed requiring disclosure when AI is used to create content, protecting AI-assisted works only when they meet an unspecified human-involvement threshold, and excluding fully AI-generated works from copyright protection. It also proposed rules for using copyrighted material to train AI, through fair-use provisions or licensing, and a ban on AI imitation of a creator’s “distinctive style.” The draft has since changed, and those details should not be treated as settled.
The July version also proposed compensation for platforms that aggregate, republish or display news, including in link previews, and for news content used in AI training. Payments would go through state-supervised collective management organisations and then to publishers. Reuters reported that noncompliance could bring sanctions, including revocation of local business permits. The full text currently before lawmakers was not available, and reports refer to different versions.
Why Indonesia’s AI Copyright Proposal Matters To Meta, TikTok And Google
A proposed copyright-law revision could change how platforms pay for news and use copyrighted material to train AI. The draft is still under discussion and is not law.
What the proposal could change
Earlier draft provisions point to new rules for news use and AI, though the current text is unclear.
Possible publisher payments
An earlier draft proposed compensation when platforms display, aggregate or republish news, including link previews.
Licensing rules under debate
The proposal could set conditions for using copyrighted material to train AI, affecting access to Indonesian-language content.
Disclosure and imitation
A July draft included AI disclosure, a human-involvement threshold and a ban on imitating a creator’s distinctive style.
Three platforms push back
Meta, TikTok and Google challenged parts of the proposed revision at the hearing.
- Google opposed link payments and a single licensing body.
- Meta said link sharing differs from republishing and warned payment duties could reduce traffic.
- TikTok called for safe-harbor protections and limits on disclosure rules for AI-assisted work.
- Publishers could receive compensation through collective payments.
- Platforms could face new licensing costs or change how they display local news.
- AI developers could face limits on training with copyrighted local material.
The draft is still unsettled
Reports refer to different versions, and the complete text now before lawmakers was not available.
The Legislation Body heard from Google, Meta, TikTok, the Press Council and licensing representatives.
Baleg and the government are still working through the proposed revision.
No vote date was announced, and key details may change before lawmakers decide.
How the Proposal Could Reshape Platform Deals
The dispute concerns how value and responsibility are divided between platforms, publishers, creators and AI companies. If lawmakers require payment for news links or snippets, services that direct audiences to Indonesian journalism could face new licensing costs or reconsider how they display local news. Google’s warning that it might stop crawling, indexing and distributing Indonesian news illustrates one possible response, but it is the company’s position, not an established outcome.
For publishers, a collective-payment system could create a route to compensation, while leaving questions about who qualifies, how funds are divided and whether platform changes would reduce audience referrals. At the hearing, the Press Council argued that platforms take 80 percent of digital advertising and that traffic from platforms to news sites has fallen by as much as 70 percent. Those figures were presented by the council; the available reporting does not establish their measurement methods or period.
For AI developers, licensing requirements or limits on training with copyrighted Indonesian material could affect access to local-language data. Google argued that requiring licenses for all training data would be technically unworkable and said restrictions could make AI worse at Indonesian. That is the company’s assessment. The bill’s eventual language will determine whether training rules create broad obligations, exceptions or opt-out mechanisms.
Products Worth Considering
Vari Ergo Electric Standing Desk, 54×26, Light Wood/White
Dell UltraSharp U2424H 24-Inch FHD Monitor
Logitech MX Ergo S Advanced Wireless Trackball Mouse USB-C – Graphite
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
From 2014 Law to AI Rules
Indonesia’s current copyright statute dates to 2014, before today’s generative-AI systems became a central policy concern. In July, law ministry official Hermansyah Siregar told Reuters that generative AI had disrupted the copyright framework and described the proposal as a first explicit recognition of AI in the law. He also said the draft was not final.
The proposal would build on an existing platform-journalism measure. Presidential Regulation No. 32 of 2024 requires digital platforms to support quality journalism. At the November hearing, Press Council deputy chair Totok Suryanto said compliance had been low and that the regulation had not worked as intended, according to Aktual. The proposed copyright revision would add a different mechanism: potential compensation obligations tied to uses of protected content.
Companies and publishers frame the balance differently. Meta said sharing a link is not the same as republishing the linked article and argued that payment duties could reduce publishers’ traffic and revenue. TikTok said disclosure rules should not apply when AI merely assists a person’s work and called for intermediary safe-harbor protections to remain. Google objected to link payments and a single licensing body, and proposed a text-and-data-mining exception with an opt-out such as robots.txt, according to reports on the hearing.
“No choice”
— Google representative Agung Pamungkas, as reported by Reuters
Draft Text and Vote Date Remain Open
The version under deliberation is not publicly established in the available reporting. The July draft has changed, the complete current text could not be obtained, and reports cite different versions. Google referred at the hearing to provisions it said would require payment for indexing, aggregation, curation and news snippets, but the article numbering and details cannot be independently confirmed from the full text.
It is also unclear how the bill would define sufficient human involvement in AI-assisted work, how a style-imitation ban would be applied, what uses of training data would qualify for fair use, and how any collective licensing body would set and distribute payments. No vote date was announced in the source material. The companies’ predictions about impacts, and the Press Council’s figures on advertising and referral traffic, remain attributed positions rather than settled findings about what the bill will cause.
Parliament Continues Baleg Deliberations
Baleg is continuing deliberations with the government after hearing from platforms, the Press Council and licensing representatives. The next key development will be publication or clarification of the revised text, followed by any announced timetable for a parliamentary vote. Until then, the July provisions are useful as a record of the proposal’s direction, not a definitive account of what lawmakers will approve.
Readers should watch whether legislators retain payments for link previews and news aggregation, how they define obligations for AI training, and whether platforms receive safe-harbor protection or a text-and-data-mining exception. Any final law would determine the practical consequences for publishers, creators and services operating in Indonesia.
Key Questions
Has Indonesia passed the AI copyright proposal?
No. The revision is under deliberation by parliament’s Legislation Body and the government. The source material gives no announced date for a vote.
What payments could the draft require?
An earlier draft reported by Reuters proposed compensation when platforms aggregate, republish or display news, including through link previews, and when news is used for AI training. The current draft text was not available, so the final scope is uncertain.
What are Google, Meta and TikTok objecting to?
Google has challenged payments for links, a single collective licensing body and mandatory licenses for AI training data, while seeking intermediary safe-harbor protection. Meta argues that linking is not republishing and that payment duties could hurt publishers’ traffic and revenue. TikTok says disclosure should not be required when AI only assists a person’s work and also supports retaining safe-harbor protection.
Would the proposal give copyright to fully AI-generated work?
The July draft reported by Reuters would exclude fully AI-generated works from protection and protect AI-assisted work only if it met a human-involvement threshold. The threshold was unspecified, and the draft has since changed.
When will lawmakers vote?
No vote date has been announced in the available source material. The next concrete milestone is further deliberation and clarification of the text being considered.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
