Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2019 - 2024
0.983
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Reformasi Hukum Trisakti Amicus Curiae
RR. Aline Gratika Nugrahani
Program Studi Ilmu Hukum, Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Trisakti, Jakarta, Indonesia
Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice

Published : 5 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 5 Documents
Search

 1 
ANALISIS DI TAKE DOWN-NYA LAGU KEKE BUKAN BONEKA OLEH PIHAK YOUTUBE Alexandra Nicole Karauwan; RR. Aline Gratika Nugrahani
Reformasi Hukum Trisakti Vol. 4 No. 1 (2022): Reformasi Hukum Trisakti
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Trisakti

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (250.57 KB) | DOI: 10.25105/refor.v4i1.13417

Abstract

Kekeyi is the singer and composer of the song Keke Not a Doll. The video for the song Keke Not a Doll was uploaded to YouTube about six days ago. YouTube later removed the video because to a copyright claim made by Rini Idol-Aku Not a Doll. The main issue is whether or not Kekeyi's song Keke Not a Doll violates the copyright for Kekeyi's song I'm Not a Doll and whether YouTube's action in removing the song is an attempt to protect that copyright of Novi Umar. It is legal research, use secondary evidence, descriptive and uses the deductive method to reach findings. According to the research, the song I'm Not a Doll by Novi Umar is copyleft protected. As a result, YouTube's removal of the song Keke Not a Doll by Kekeyi is an effort to uphold copyright, and Kekeyi took a significant portion of the song I'm Not a Doll. Not a Doll, which is a feature of the song I'm Not a Doll, in which the majority of the song's lyrics are derived, as well as copyright infringement, is governed by Article 44 of Law Number 28 of 2014 concerning Copyright.
TERDAFTARNYA KATA UMUM "AJAIB" SEBAGAI MEREK PADA DAFTAR UMUM MEREK Shafa Bakadam; Rr. Aline Gratika Nugrahani
Reformasi Hukum Trisakti Vol. 3 No. 4 (2021): Reformasi Hukum Trisakti
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Trisakti

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (294.696 KB) | DOI: 10.25105/refor.v4i2.13621

Abstract

In the Intellectual Property Database, four words "Magic" were found which were used as trademarks with registered status. Article 20 letter f of Law Number 20 of 2016 concerning Marks and Geographical Indications states that a mark cannot be registered if it is a public name and/or a symbol of public property. The main problem is whether the word Magic is not included in the category of common words so that its registration is accepted and what are the legal consequences for the acceptance of registration of common words as a mark and what legal remedies can be taken based on Law Number 20 of 2016 concerning Marks and Geographical Indications. The research was conducted using normative legal research methods, with secondary data supported by primary data. The nature of the research is descriptive and conclusions are drawn using the deductive method. Based on the research results, the word Magic is a general word, so registration as a trademark cannot be accepted.
PENGGUNAAN KARYA CIPTA FONT ‘OM TELOLET OM’ PADA PRODUK GREENFIELDS: The Use of Copyright Works in the the Form of Font ' Om Telolet Om' on Greenfields Product Stella Monica Izabelle; Rr. Aline Gratika Nugrahani
AMICUS CURIAE Vol. 1 No. 1 (2024): Amicus Curiae
Publisher : Universitas Trisakti

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25105/amicus.v1i1.19645

Abstract

As the owner of the ‘Om Telolet Om’ font, Arwan OD objected to using his font for the Greenfields brand. The font is used in writing attached to the Greenfields milk packaging. This study aims to find out how the Copyright Law protects fonts as copyrighted works and whether the use of the ‘Om Telolet Om’ font by Greenfields products is a copyright infringement. The research uses normative legal research methods, with secondary data supported by primary data. Based on the results of the research, it is known that based on Article 40 of the Copyright Law Number 28 of 2014, fonts are copyrighted works in the field of calligraphy art so the use of the font ‘Om Telolet Om’ without permission on greenfields milk packaging is a violation of the economic rights of the creator.
ANALISIS DI TAKE DOWN-NYA LAGU KEKE BUKAN BONEKA OLEH PIHAK YOUTUBE Alexandra Nicole Karauwan; RR. Aline Gratika Nugrahani
Reformasi Hukum Trisakti Vol 4 No 1 (2022): Reformasi Hukum Trisakti
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Trisakti

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25105/refor.v4i1.13417

Abstract

Kekeyi is the singer and composer of the song Keke Not a Doll. The video for the song Keke Not a Doll was uploaded to YouTube about six days ago. YouTube later removed the video because to a copyright claim made by Rini Idol-Aku Not a Doll. The main issue is whether or not Kekeyi's song Keke Not a Doll violates the copyright for Kekeyi's song I'm Not a Doll and whether YouTube's action in removing the song is an attempt to protect that copyright of Novi Umar. It is legal research, use secondary evidence, descriptive and uses the deductive method to reach findings. According to the research, the song I'm Not a Doll by Novi Umar is copyleft protected. As a result, YouTube's removal of the song Keke Not a Doll by Kekeyi is an effort to uphold copyright, and Kekeyi took a significant portion of the song I'm Not a Doll. Not a Doll, which is a feature of the song I'm Not a Doll, in which the majority of the song's lyrics are derived, as well as copyright infringement, is governed by Article 44 of Law Number 28 of 2014 concerning Copyright.
TERDAFTARNYA KATA UMUM "AJAIB" SEBAGAI MEREK PADA DAFTAR UMUM MEREK Shafa Bakadam; Rr. Aline Gratika Nugrahani
Reformasi Hukum Trisakti Vol 3 No 4 (2021): Reformasi Hukum Trisakti
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Trisakti

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25105/refor.v4i2.13621

Abstract

In the Intellectual Property Database, four words "Magic" were found which were used as trademarks with registered status. Article 20 letter f of Law Number 20 of 2016 concerning Marks and Geographical Indications states that a mark cannot be registered if it is a public name and/or a symbol of public property. The main problem is whether the word Magic is not included in the category of common words so that its registration is accepted and what are the legal consequences for the acceptance of registration of common words as a mark and what legal remedies can be taken based on Law Number 20 of 2016 concerning Marks and Geographical Indications. The research was conducted using normative legal research methods, with secondary data supported by primary data. The nature of the research is descriptive and conclusions are drawn using the deductive method. Based on the research results, the word Magic is a general word, so registration as a trademark cannot be accepted.
Co-Authors Alexandra Nicole Karauwan Shafa Bakadam Stella Monica Izabelle