🔍 Read the full analysis: Meta, TikTok And Google Challenge The Direction Of Indonesia’s AI Bill on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get business pricing on office and shipping supplies
- Business-only prices and quantity discounts
- Tax-exempt purchasing
- Multiple users, one account, clear invoices
TL;DR
Meta and TikTok joined Google in challenging parts of Indonesia’s proposed copyright-law revision at a parliamentary hearing on November 11. The draft would address AI training and disclosure while requiring platforms to pay for some uses of news, but its current wording and a vote date remain unclear.
Meta and TikTok joined Google in challenging parts of Indonesia’s proposed copyright-law revision at a hearing in Jakarta on November 11, as lawmakers consider rules that could require platforms to pay publishers for displaying news and set conditions for using copyrighted work in AI systems. The bill is still a draft, and parliament has not announced a vote date.
The proposal would revise Indonesia’s Copyright Law, Law No. 28 of 2014. Parliament approved it as a legislative initiative on March 12, 2026, and its Legislation Body is now discussing it with the government. The November 11 hearing included Google, Meta, TikTok, the Press Council and Satu Lisensi Indonesia, according to Kompas.
Google objected to payment obligations for news links and snippets, a single collective licensing body, and mandatory licensing for AI training data, according to reports by Suara and Kompas. Its representative, Agung Pamungkas, argued that links help people find news and said a levy could leave Google with “no choice” but to stop crawling, indexing and distributing Indonesian news, Reuters reported. Google also called for intermediary safe-harbor protections and proposed a text-and-data-mining exception with an opt-out mechanism such as robots.txt.
Meta argued that sharing a link is not the same as republishing an article and said payment requirements could reduce publishers’ traffic and revenue. TikTok said disclosure rules should not cover cases where AI merely assists a person, and also called for safe-harbor protection. These are the companies’ positions, not findings by lawmakers. The full bill text currently under discussion was not available, and reports refer to different draft versions.
Platforms challenge copyright bill direction
Meta and TikTok joined Google in challenging parts of Indonesia’s draft copyright revision. The proposal remains under discussion, with its wording and vote date still unclear.
What companies challenged
Their objections focus on how the draft could affect news distribution and AI use.
Payments and licensing
Objected to news-link payments, a single licensing body and mandatory licenses for AI training data.
Links versus republication
Argued that sharing a link is not republishing an article and payment rules could reduce publisher traffic and revenue.
AI disclosure scope
Asked that disclosure rules not apply when AI merely assists a person, and called for safe-harbor protection.
Possible effects
The final rules could change how publishers, platforms and developers work together.
- Payments for some news displays could create compensation.
- Changes to platform distribution could affect referral traffic.
- Payment terms could affect news links, previews or aggregation.
- Licensing and disclosure rules could shape AI training and content use.
Draft provisions described
The reported July draft outlined possible rules, but it was not final and may differ from the text now under discussion.
Disclose AI use in content, as described in the July draft.
Protect AI-assisted work only when it meets a human-involvement standard; the threshold was unspecified.
Consider fair use or licensing for copyrighted works used to train AI.
What remains unsettled
The available reporting does not confirm the full November draft.
- How payment rates and covered platform activities would be set.
- How a collective licensing body would be governed and distribute compensation.
- The scope of safe harbors, training exceptions and sanctions.
- Whether lawmakers will revise the proposal or when parliament will vote.
How the Bill Could Affect Platforms and Publishers
The dispute concerns how news distribution and copyright revenue are divided between publishers and platforms. If the bill requires payment for link previews, aggregation or other display of news, it could create a new source of compensation for publishers. But Google’s warning highlights a competing possibility: platforms could limit news indexing or distribution rather than accept the proposed terms. The hearing record does not establish what any company would ultimately do.
The proposal could also shape the conditions for AI development and creative work in Indonesia. Licensing requirements could affect which local material developers can use to train models, while disclosure and human-contribution rules could affect how AI-assisted work is labeled and protected. The unresolved details matter to creators, publishers and developers because the draft’s final wording and enforcement arrangements could determine how those rules operate.
The Press Council presented a different account of the current balance. It told lawmakers that platforms take 80 percent of digital advertising and that traffic from platforms to news sites has fallen by as much as 70 percent, according to the source reporting. Those figures were claims made to the hearing; the material does not provide their methodology or comparison periods.
Products Worth Considering
Dell UltraSharp U2724DE 27-Inch WQHD IPS Black Monitor
Dell UltraSharp U2424H 24-Inch FHD Monitor
Samsung 32-Inch Movingstyle Essential 4K UHD Smart Monitor with Adjustable Rolling Stand
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
From the July Draft to November’s Hearing
The AI provisions became public through reporting on a July 17 draft. Reuters reported that the draft would recognize AI in copyright law, with law ministry intellectual-property official Hermansyah Siregar confirming that the text was authentic while stressing it was not final. He said generative AI had disrupted the copyright framework.
As described in that July version, the proposal would restrict AI imitation of a creator’s “distinctive style,” require disclosure of AI use in content, and protect AI-assisted work only when it met a human-involvement standard. Fully AI-generated works would not qualify for that protection. The draft did not specify how much human input would be needed. It also contemplated fair-use provisions or licensing for copyrighted works used to train AI, and compensation for certain platform uses of news, including link previews and AI training.
The proposal builds on Presidential Regulation No. 32 of 2024, which requires digital platforms to support quality journalism. At the November hearing, Press Council deputy chair Totok Suryanto said the regulation had not worked as intended and platform compliance was low, according to Aktual. The current bill could strengthen or change the approach, but its operative provisions remain unsettled.
“The development of generative AI has disrupted the copyright framework.”
— Hermansyah Siregar, a law ministry official overseeing intellectual property, as quoted by Reuters
What the Current Draft Still Leaves Open
The full November draft is not publicly confirmed in the source material. The account of AI clauses largely relies on the July version, while reports from the hearing describe provisions and article numbers in a later text. Those versions may differ, so the July draft’s details should not be treated as settled law or a definitive account of the current proposal.
Key mechanics are unresolved in the available reporting: how payment rates would be calculated, which platform activities would trigger payment, how any collective licensing body would be governed, and how compensation would reach publishers. The proposed test for sufficient human involvement in AI-assisted work is also unspecified. The material does not establish the final scope of safe-harbor protections, exceptions for AI training, sanctions, or any response lawmakers will make to the companies’ objections.
There is also no announced date for a parliamentary vote in the source material. The Press Council’s advertising and referral-traffic figures are statements made to lawmakers, with no underlying methodology or measurement window provided here.
Lawmakers Continue Deliberations
Indonesia’s Legislation Body and the government are continuing deliberations on the bill. The November 11 hearing gave lawmakers positions from technology companies, the Press Council and a licensing organization; it does not mark passage or show that legislators accepted any side’s proposals.
The next useful developments will be publication or confirmation of the revised bill text, clarification of its licensing and AI-training provisions, and any announced timetable for further hearings or a vote. Until those details emerge, the proposal’s effects on news access, publisher compensation and AI developers remain contingent on the final language.
Key Questions
Has Indonesia passed the AI copyright bill?
No. The proposal remains under parliamentary deliberation. The source material gives no date for a vote.
What do Meta, TikTok and Google oppose?
Their objections differ, but they have challenged aspects of payments for news links or displays and the proposed rules’ effects on platforms. Google also opposed a single collective licensing body and mandatory AI-training licenses; TikTok called for disclosure exemptions when AI only assists a person.
What AI rules appeared in the reported draft?
The July draft described by Reuters included possible rules on AI disclosure, human involvement in AI-assisted work, style imitation and copyrighted training material. That draft was not final, and the current text may have changed.
Would platforms definitely stop showing Indonesian news?
No. Google warned that a levy could lead it to stop crawling, indexing and distributing Indonesian news, but that was a conditional company warning, not a confirmed action.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
