The Freedom of Expression in Social Media based on Creator’s Moral Right: A Comparative Study

Nico Sunarko Putra, Heniyatun Heniyatun, C. B. E. Praja, Puji Sulistyaningsih, H. A. Hakim, Muhammad Bagus Boy Saputra, Z. B. Pambuko
{"title":"The Freedom of Expression in Social Media based on Creator’s Moral Right: A Comparative Study","authors":"Nico Sunarko Putra, Heniyatun Heniyatun, C. B. E. Praja, Puji Sulistyaningsih, H. A. Hakim, Muhammad Bagus Boy Saputra, Z. B. Pambuko","doi":"10.4108/eai.18-11-2020.2311770","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":". The problems in this study include the limitations of the right to integrity in moral rights concerning freedom of expression and the comparative protection of Moral Rights in Indonesia, France, America and Germany. This study is a normative juridical method with a statute approach, conceptual approach, and a comparative approach using primary materials, secondary materials and tertiary materials. The research specifications used are analytical descriptive. The technique of collecting data uses the library research method. The results of the study indicate that there is a limit for users in using the Work of others following Article 27-29 of the ITE Law and the principle of fair use in the provisions of Article 43-50 Copyright Law 2014, and in other clauses using Three-Step Test Analysis (TST). Comparing moral rights protection in Indonesia, France, America, and Germany show equality in regulations due to ratifying the Berne Convention. The fundamental difference is seen in the arrangements in the United States, which focus more on the principle of expediency (Creator Economic Rights) than Moral Rights as in the performance of the State of Indonesia, France, and Germany.","PeriodicalId":415970,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2nd Borobudur International Symposium on Humanities and Social Sciences, BIS-HSS 2020, 18 November 2020, Magelang, Central Java, Indonesia","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 2nd Borobudur International Symposium on Humanities and Social Sciences, BIS-HSS 2020, 18 November 2020, Magelang, Central Java, Indonesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.18-11-2020.2311770","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

. The problems in this study include the limitations of the right to integrity in moral rights concerning freedom of expression and the comparative protection of Moral Rights in Indonesia, France, America and Germany. This study is a normative juridical method with a statute approach, conceptual approach, and a comparative approach using primary materials, secondary materials and tertiary materials. The research specifications used are analytical descriptive. The technique of collecting data uses the library research method. The results of the study indicate that there is a limit for users in using the Work of others following Article 27-29 of the ITE Law and the principle of fair use in the provisions of Article 43-50 Copyright Law 2014, and in other clauses using Three-Step Test Analysis (TST). Comparing moral rights protection in Indonesia, France, America, and Germany show equality in regulations due to ratifying the Berne Convention. The fundamental difference is seen in the arrangements in the United States, which focus more on the principle of expediency (Creator Economic Rights) than Moral Rights as in the performance of the State of Indonesia, France, and Germany.
基于创作者道德权利的社交媒体表达自由:比较研究
. 本研究的问题包括在言论自由的道德权利中人格完整权的局限性,以及印尼、法国、美国和德国对道德权利的比较保护。本研究是一种规范的司法方法,采用法规方法、概念方法和比较方法,使用初级材料、二级材料和三级材料。使用的研究规范是分析描述性的。收集数据的技术采用图书馆研究方法。研究结果表明,2014年《著作权法》第43-50条规定的合理使用原则,以及其他采用三步测试分析法(TST)的条款,对用户使用他人作品存在一定的限制。比较印尼、法国、美国和德国的人格权保护,由于加入了《伯尔尼公约》,体现了法规上的平等。从美国的安排中可以看出根本的区别,它更注重权宜之计原则(创造者的经济权利),而不是像印度尼西亚、法国和德国的表现那样注重道德权利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信