Analysis of the Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Against Rachmawati Soekarno in Decision Number 305 K/PDT. SUS-HKI/2014

Niko Wijaya, Gunardi Lie, Moody Rizqy Syailendra Putra
{"title":"Analysis of the Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Against Rachmawati Soekarno in Decision Number 305 K/PDT. SUS-HKI/2014","authors":"Niko Wijaya, Gunardi Lie, Moody Rizqy Syailendra Putra","doi":"10.57235/qistina.v3i1.2336","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Basically, the meaning of the film itself can be said to be a mass communication medium where the content can be related to vital ideas which of course are aimed at the audience and also carry a message. This is the meaning of the film as a work of cultural art being displayed. Therefore, it can be said that the film itself has several functions as a driver of creative work, an educational function and also an informational function. It can be said that because the function of this film is diverse, the function of the film is not only limited to entertainment. The holder of the economic rights or moral rights of the disputed Soekarno film script is Rahmawati but apparently her name was not included so that Rahmawati filed a lawsuit at the court in Central Jakarta against PT Multivisionfus and director Hanung Bramantyo that the basis of the lawsuit was copyright infringement of the copyright in Soekarno, created and directed by Hanung Bramantyo. In the first instance, the lawsuit filed by Rahmawati was explained in the decision of the Central Jakarta District Court that the lawsuit was granted and considered that there were indications of copyright infringement by not including Rahmawati's name and Soekarno's film script, which was committed by Multivision Plus. However, because the defendant did not agree with the decision given by the Central Jakarta court, a cassation was submitted to the supreme court and in the end the appeal was accepted by the supreme court and stated that the figure Soekarno was not someone's creation, but was a real figure who actually lived. and finally died.","PeriodicalId":194212,"journal":{"name":"QISTINA: Jurnal Multidisiplin Indonesia","volume":"22 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"QISTINA: Jurnal Multidisiplin Indonesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.57235/qistina.v3i1.2336","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

Basically, the meaning of the film itself can be said to be a mass communication medium where the content can be related to vital ideas which of course are aimed at the audience and also carry a message. This is the meaning of the film as a work of cultural art being displayed. Therefore, it can be said that the film itself has several functions as a driver of creative work, an educational function and also an informational function. It can be said that because the function of this film is diverse, the function of the film is not only limited to entertainment. The holder of the economic rights or moral rights of the disputed Soekarno film script is Rahmawati but apparently her name was not included so that Rahmawati filed a lawsuit at the court in Central Jakarta against PT Multivisionfus and director Hanung Bramantyo that the basis of the lawsuit was copyright infringement of the copyright in Soekarno, created and directed by Hanung Bramantyo. In the first instance, the lawsuit filed by Rahmawati was explained in the decision of the Central Jakarta District Court that the lawsuit was granted and considered that there were indications of copyright infringement by not including Rahmawati's name and Soekarno's film script, which was committed by Multivision Plus. However, because the defendant did not agree with the decision given by the Central Jakarta court, a cassation was submitted to the supreme court and in the end the appeal was accepted by the supreme court and stated that the figure Soekarno was not someone's creation, but was a real figure who actually lived. and finally died.
对第 305 K/PDT 号判决中针对 Rachmawati Soekarno 的版权侵权诉讼的分析。SUS-HKI/2014
从根本上说,电影本身的意义可以说是一种大众传播媒介,其内容可以与重要的思想相联系,这些思想当然是针对观众的,同时也蕴含着某种信息。这就是电影作为文化艺术作品展示的意义。因此,可以说电影本身具有多种功能,既是创作的动力,又具有教育功能和信息功能。可以说,由于这部电影的功能是多种多样的,因此它的功能不仅仅局限于娱乐。有争议的《苏加诺》电影剧本的经济权利或精神权利的持有人是拉赫玛瓦蒂,但显然她的名字没有被包括在内,因此拉赫玛瓦蒂向雅加达中央法院起诉 PT Multivisionfus 公司和导演哈农-布拉曼蒂约(Hanung Bramantyo),诉讼的基础是侵犯哈农-布拉曼蒂约创作和导演的《苏加诺》的版权。雅加达中央地方法院在一审判决中对 Rahmawati 提起的诉讼进行了解释,认为 Multivision Plus 未将 Rahmawati 的姓名和《Soekarno》的电影剧本包括在内,有侵犯版权的迹象。但是,由于被告不同意雅加达中央法院的判决,因此向最高法院提出了撤销原判的上诉,最终最高法院接受了上诉,并指出苏加诺这个人物不是某个人创造出来的,而是一个真实存在并最终死去的人物。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信