Under Indonesia’s Copyright Law, Law No. 28 of 2014 on Copyrights, a photograph sits at the intersection of two different legal worlds: the copyright of the photographer, and the image rights of the person being photographed. These two worlds do not cancel each other out, they coexist and the law recognizes both as valid and enforceable interests.

Under Indonesian law, every photograph is recognized as a form of karya fotografi or photography which falls under the broader category of Works or “Ciptaan” protected by copyright. The key to protection is not who owns the camera, nor who physically presses the shutter. The key is human creativity.

Under the Indonesian Copyright Law defines an Author or “Pencipta” as an individual or several individuals who, independently or jointly, produce a work that is distinctive and personal in nature. This means a photographer becomes the author not because they brought a camera, but because they made creative choices: framing, timing, lighting, composition, temperature, etc. These choices are human creative contributions that materialize into a photograph, which then copyright arises automatically.

But Indonesian Copyright Law goes further. It recognizes that some photographs involve more than creativity, they involve the identity of the person being photographed. Because of this, Article 12 introduces a special regime for portraits, which Article 1 number 10 Law No. 28/2014 defines strictly as a photographic work whose object is a human being.

For portraits, the subject which is the human appearing in the photo holds a personal right to control the commercial use of their image. Even if the photographer owns the copyright, they cannot use a person’s portrait in advertising, promotion, or other commercial contexts without the subject’s written consent. This leads to a natural question: what if the photographed subject cannot give consent at all? What if the subject is not a human being? This question gained global attention in the “monkey selfie” incident, where a crested macaque in North Sulawesi pressed the shutter of an unattended camera and produced an unforgettable self-portrait. If a monkey takes a photo, who owns the copyright? Does the photographer have a claim simply because the camera belonged to him?

Under Indonesian law, the answer is clear.

First, because the subject is not human, the photo is not considered as portrait, thus, no consent is required. Image rights apply only to humans, as they are rooted in concepts like privacy, consent, and other rights that does not extend to animals under the Indonesian Law.

Second, and more importantly, the monkey cannot be considered as an author.
Article 1 number 3 defines a Works or Ciptaan as any scientific, artistic, and literary works resulted from inspiration, ability, thought, imagination, dexterity, skill or expertise expressed in a tangible form, which every element in the definition requires human creativity effort. An animal pressing a button randomly, without any human intention, cannot satisfy the definition of authorship. The resulting photograph therefore does not qualify as a Work and therefore cannot be protected under the Copyright regime.

However, the analysis changes if the photographer contributed creative input before the monkey pressed the shutter. If the photographer arranged the camera, chose the angle, selected the lens, configured the lighting, and intentionally designed the conditions for the shot, then the human’s creative vision remains the driving force behind the work. In that case, the monkey pressing the button becomes a mere mechanical step in a human-created process. The photographer would still be the author, because the human creative contribution shaped the final expression. Thus, ownership of the camera alone does not simply give copyright to a photograph.

In the end, when it comes to portraits, Indonesian Copyright Law recognizes the consent of human subject to control the commercial use of their own portraits.
Animals fall entirely outside the system of image rights.
And works produced without human creativity like a purely animal-generated selfie are not protected by copyright at all. So even when a monkey presses the button, the law continues to search for the human contribution behind the image. It asks: Who brought creative ideas into life? In Indonesia, the authorship belongs to humans and so do the rights that follow. The monkey may have captured the frame, but under the law, only humans can create art and only humans can own it. This position is also consistent with Naruto v. Slater jurispudence, in which, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, expressly held that “animals, other than humans lack statutory standing to sue under the Copyright Act” confirming that only humans are legally recognized to own and enforce copyright in their works.

 

Author: Ruth Arthasya Angelica.

More from A&CO Law Office