UDTR — Radar mondial des droits de la Nature

Interpreting “Held by the State”: Article 38 (1) Copyright Law and Traditional Cultural Expression Protection

Identification

Clé publique

doi:10.21070/jihr.v14i1.1119

Auteurs

Mohammad Fahrial Amrulla · Afifah Kusumadara · Budi Santoso · Yenny Eta Widyanti

Année déclarée

2026

Langue déclarée

en

Type source

article

Première détection

2026-11-09T19:04:47.788702+00:00

Dernière observation des métadonnées

2026-11-09T19:04:47.788702+00:00

Dernière vérification HTTP

Non effectuée

Institutions déclarées par la source

University of Brawijaya

Pays d’affiliation déclarés

ID

Résumé documentaire — langue originale

General Background Traditional cultural expressions constitute communal cultural heritage embodying identity, philosophy, and collective memory, requiring legal protection aligned with their communal and sacred nature. Specific Background In Indonesia, traditional batik motifs—particularly the sacred Parang motifs of the Yogyakarta Sultanate—are classified as traditional cultural expressions whose copyright is declared “held by the state” under Article 38 paragraph (1) of Law No. 28 of 2014 on Copyright. Knowledge Gap This formulation contains normative ambiguity, as it does not clearly define whether state authority represents ownership, public trusteeship, or mere administrative control, resulting in weak legal certainty for indigenous custodians. Aims This study examines the legal meaning of the phrase “held by the state” in relation to the protection of sacred Parang batik motifs within the framework of traditional cultural expressions. Results The analysis shows that the provision functions as a declarative norm lacking substantive mechanisms, failing to recognize customary authority, community consent, or benefit-sharing, and thereby permitting desacralization and misuse of sacred motifs. Novelty This research clarifies that state control over traditional cultural expressions should be interpreted as public trusteeship rather than ownership, drawing comparative insights from community-centered protection models in India and Thailand. Implications The findings support the development of a sui generis legal framework integrating customary law, community participation, and administrative facilitation to ensure sustainable and culturally respectful protection of sacred batik motifs. Highlights: Article 38 paragraph (1) operates as a declarative norm without concrete protective mechanisms Legal ambiguity weakens recognition of indigenous custodianship over sacred motifs Comparative models support community-based rights with state administrative roles Keywords: Batik, Traditional Cultural Expression, Copyright, State Held

Identifiants

OPENALEX

W7223029869

DOI

10.21070/jihr.v14i1.1119

Repères documentaires

Famille documentaire

Doctrine

Types déclarés par les sources

article

Les mentions d’entités ne constituent pas une preuve de reconnaissance juridique. La juridiction étudiée est distincte du pays d’affiliation des auteurs.

Sources

OpenAlex · Document 1 · Document 2

• DOI · https://doi.org/10.21070/jihr.v14i1.1119
• OpenAlex · https://openalex.org/W7223029869

Relations bibliographiques documentées

Références et liens déclarés par les sources ; ils ne constituent pas une preuve juridique ni une qualification UGLC. Affichage limité à 20 références sortantes.

• openalex:w2294310715 · CITES
• openalex:w2949224065 · CITES
• openalex:w3195829458 · CITES
• openalex:w4412138411 · CITES
• openalex:w4414412824 · CITES

0 références entrantes au sein du corpus détecté

Statut documentaire

Pertinence à examiner

Bibliothèque

Cette identité n’est pas encore intégrée à la Bibliothèque juridique.