IPR Policy for Creative City
Lot of hope are raised for the sector of creative economy in encouraging economic growth and prospering society at this time. Moreover, when the crisis storm hit several countries such as Europe and the United States. Expectations for the increasing role of the creative economy sector, certainly it is not enough just a one-sided action from creative economic actors, but this must also be supported by real policies and implementation from the government for the interests of the creative economy. One of the policies and implementations that are currently very important and strategic in encouraging the role of the creative economy in economic growth and community welfare is strengthening policies and the application of creative economic intellectual property rights in creative cities (Creative City).
IPR Policy
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) which have been considered from a legal perspective as rights, in an economic perspective IPR can be defined as assets, especially intangible assets. Based on legal perspective of IPR, then the development of policy and implementation of IPRs carried out by the Central Government through the Directorate General of Intellectual Property Rights at the Ministry of Law and Human Rights, is very logical. However, when IPR is interpreted as an intangible asset, then the development of IPR policies by the Central Government alone is not enough. IPR policy support made by Creative City is another part that must be strengthened.
In practice, IPR policies developed in the context of the creative economy as intangible assets are still being carried out centrally by the central government. IPR policy seems to be only a central matter, while Creative City has no business in this area. As a result, various IPR problems arise in reality. Some of the IPR issues that can be identified are; First, the weakness of Creative City in educating IPR. There is often overlap in the delivery of IPR materials by government agencies, both central and Creative City, which is a clear example; Second, the lack of ownership documentation of IPR assets by Creative City; Third, the weakness of technical staff of Creative City in facilitating the management of intellectual property rights originating from creative economy actors; Fourth, the absence of Creative City’s real assistance in resolving cases of IPR violations experienced by creative economy actors; and Fifth, the lack of IPR assets that are promoted and commercialized with the help of the active role of Creative City.
Based on the various problems above, a further consequence is the weak role of the creative economy to encourage economic growth and improve the welfare of the people in Creative City.
IPR Policy for Creative City
After seeing the consequences of centralized IPR policies by the Central and causing problems in practice, it is time for IPR policies to be carried out by synergizing IPR policies at the Center and Creative City. Specifically, in terms of IPR policies in Creative City, it should be oriented within the framework of managing IPR assets from creative economy products in the context of increasing economic growth and community welfare in creative cities not on granting rights.
The opportunities to implement IPR asset management policies for creative economy products in Creative City as referred to above are actually legally possible. This can be seen at least in Law no. 32 of 2004 concerning Regional Government. According to the provisions of Law no. 32/2004 it is stated that in implementing autonomy, regions have the right to manage regional assets. Then in the law it is also stated that in implementing autonomy, regions have the obligation to improve the quality of people’s lives; and develop productive resources in the region.
In other reason besides of legal reasons for making IPR asset management policies in Creative City, sociologically the need for IPR asset management policies cannot be avoided. Until today, the reality is that the creative economy products in Creative City are generally felt to have not accommodated the need for IPR protection and benefit from IPR itself.
There are three things that should become a concern of the IPR asset management policy from creative economy products, consist of; First, IPR asset management policies must be able to encourage the process of creating innovative creative economy products, Second, IPR asset management policies made must be able to facilitate documentation, registration and advocacy on IPR assets from creative economy products, so that IPR assets from economic products creative economy can be protected, and Third, the policy for managing IPR assets must be able to encourage promotion and commercialization of IPR assets from creative economy products.
In other side, the IPR management policy which includes the three things above, these three things should also be synergized each other, thus forming a system for managing IPR assets from the creative economy at Creative City. In the end, through the making of IPR asset management policies from creative economy products in Creative City, efforts to utilize IPR assets as a strategy to increase economic growth and community welfare can be realized.
Prof. Dr. Budi Agus Riswandi, S.H., M.Hum.
Director of Intellectual Property Rights Center
Faculty of Law UII Yogyakarta
