Why Multi-Region Copyright Clearance Is a Systemic Problem for Mobile Apps

Introduction : Mobile applications deployed across India, Indonesia, and Vietnam face a copyright clearance problem that is both structural and operational. The structural layer stems from the way these three jurisdictions have each built a distinct local compliance superstructure on top of the Berne Convention and TRIPS minimum standards.

The operational layer is the one that catches most product teams off-guard. A single mobile app. typically incorporates multiple copyright-protected asset categories simultaneously : a music soundtrack or in-app audio,  a visual design system with third-party stock assets, and a software stack that includes both proprietary modules and open-source dependencies. Each category requires separate clearance pathways. Each jurisdiction applies a different institutional architecture to those clearances. The result is a clearance matrix of at least nine distinct compliance pipelines for a single three-market deployment.

The collective digital consumer population across these three markets exceeds 1.8 billion people, making them commercially unmissable. What follows is an operational framework, not a theoretical overview,  of how to build copyright clearance workflows that actually hold up in each jurisdiction.

Key Legislative Instruments in Scope

Jurisdiction / Instrument	Key Legislative / Treaty Reference
India	Copyright Act 1957 (as amended 2012); Copyright Rules 2013
India	Information Technology Act 2000 (intermediary safe harbours)
Indonesia	Law No. 28 of 2014 on Copyright (Undang-Undang Hak Cipta)
Vietnam	Amended IP Law (Law No. 50/2005 as amended by Laws 36/2009 & 42/2019)
Vietnam	Law on Technology Transfer No. 07/2017/QH14
Regional	WIPO Copyright Treaty 1996 (ratified: India 2018 ,  Indonesia 1997 ,  Vietnam 2022)
Regional	TRIPS Agreement ,  Annex 1C of Marrakesh Agreement ,  1994

Clearance Pipeline 1: Music Licensing Across Three Jurisdictions

Music copyright clearance is the most operationally complex pipeline in multi-region mobile app deployment. The core structural reason is that music rights split across two parallel layers ,  the compositional layer (melody and lyrics) and the master recording layer , and each jurisdiction routes those layers through different collective management organisations (CMOs) with different mandatory versus voluntary participation rules.

India: Dual CMO Structure and the Mechanical Rights Gap

India’s music clearance pipeline requires separate agreements with two bodies. The Indian Performing Right Society (IPRS) administers the public performance and broadcast rights for musical compositions on behalf of composers, lyricists,  and publishers. Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) handles the neighbouring rights in sound recordings, the master layer.

The clearance friction point that most app developers miss is the mechanical rights gap. Unlike the United States ,  which has a statutory compulsory licence under 17 USC § 115 for on-demand mechanical use ,  India has no equivalent provision.

This means mechanical rights for on-demand streaming must be negotiated directly with rights holders. For apps with large catalogues, especially those incorporating older Bollywood content, the metadata required to identify composition ownership is frequently incomplete or contested ,  creating a hidden infringement risk even where IPRS and PPL licences are formally in place.

Indonesia: LMKN Mandatory Chokepoint

Indonesia’s 2014 Copyright Law establishes a mandatory collective management framework that is more rigidly structured than India’s voluntary CMO model. The Lembaga Manajemen Kolektif Nasional (LMKN) operates as a national umbrella body ,  with individual rights holders legally barred from unilaterally licensing their performing rights for public commercial use outside the LMKN-recognised CMO framework.

An app developer must therefore secure licences from WAMI (Wahana Musik Indonesia,  covering performers and related rights) and ASIRINDO (covering sound recording producers) ,  in addition to the LMKN creator-side CMO. A direct label deal does not confer the public performance right , that right is exclusively reserved to the CMO collective by statute. Platforms that entered the Indonesian market relying solely on direct label agreements have faced retrospective infringement claims for this reason.

Vietnam: Dual CMO Model and MOST Overlay

Vietnam’s collective management framework operates through the Vietnam Center for Protection of Music Copyright (VCPMC) for author rights in musical compositions ,  and the Recording Industry Association of Vietnam (RIAV) for related rights in sound recordings. Both licences are required for any commercial in-app music deployment.

The structurally distinctive complexity in Vietnam is the technology transfer overlay. Vietnam’s Law on Technology Transfer may characterise the cross-border delivery of music-enabled software functionality as a technology transfer transaction if proprietary algorithmic infrastructure is integral to the delivery.

Under the broadest regulatory interpretation, this could trigger Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) notification requirements , a separate compliance stream entirely outside the copyright framework. The prudent operational posture is MOST notification for any significant software-dependent music feature deployed to Vietnamese users.

Clearance Pipeline 2: Visual Assets ,  UI Components ,  and Portrait Rights

Visual assets are routinely treated as the low-risk category of mobile app IP. They are licensed once from a reputable stock platform and deployed globally. This approach generates systematic clearance failures in all three markets.

India: Section 57 Moral Rights and the Work-for-Hire Illusion

Section 57 of the Indian Copyright Act 1957 establishes moral rights for authors that are substantially stronger than their Western equivalents. Section 57(1) provides an author with the right to claim authorship and to restrain or claim damages in respect of any distortion ,  mutilation ,  modification ,  or other act that would be prejudicial to honour or reputation. These rights survive assignment of copyright, meaning a freelancer who assigned all economic rights to a developer client retains a live moral rights claim.

Express moral rights waivers in design contractor agreements are the standard operational response ,  but Indian courts have been reluctant to treat Section 57 rights as fully waivable ,  drawing on the author-protective legislative intent. The practical implication for mobile apps: any UI component built by a contractor that is subsequently modified ,  repurposed ,  or placed in a new cultural context carries residual moral rights litigation risk that a contractual assignment cannot eliminate.

Indonesia: Article 12 Portrait Rights and User-Generated Content

Article 12 of Indonesian Copyright Law No 28/2014 creates a category of portrait rights that sits between copyright and privacy: photographing ,  duplicating ,  or disseminating a person’s portrait without their consent constitutes a copyright violation independent of whether the photographer’s rights have been cleared.

The practical implication for mobile apps with user-generated content features ,  dynamic content cards ,  or editorial photo integrations is significant: displaying identifiable Indonesian nationals commercially without individual subject consent violates Article 12 ,  even where a valid stock photography licence exists. Standard enterprise licences from Getty or Shutterstock address the photographer’s copyright , they do not automatically satisfy the underlying subject’s Article 12 consent requirement.

Vietnam: COV Registration as an Injunction Gateway

Vietnam’s Amended IP Law makes copyright registration with the Copyright Office of Vietnam (COV) the practical gateway to preliminary injunctive relief. Under Vietnamese procedural law ,  courts typically require a COV registration certificate as prima facie evidence of ownership before granting interim relief against asset cloning or unauthorised reproduction.

For a mobile app deploying a localised visual design system into Vietnam ,  this means core UI assets should be COV-registered before launch , not because registration creates the copyright ,  but because without it the app developer cannot obtain rapid injunctive relief against a copycat application. Given the speed with which copycat apps have historically appeared on Vietnamese app stores ,  this is a material business risk ,  not a theoretical compliance point.

Visual Asset Clearance Checklist

India	Moral rights waiver clauses in all design contractor agreements (contested but operationally necessary)
India	Section 57 risk documented in legal IP register for all modified or repurposed legacy visual assets
Indonesia	Article 12 consent documentation from identifiable individuals in all commercial imagery
Indonesia	Stock platform licence audit to verify underlying model releases satisfy portrait-right requirements
Vietnam	COV registration filed for all core UI design assets prior to app go-live
Vietnam	COV registration certificate stored in litigation-readiness file

Clearance Pipeline 3: Software ,  Open-Source Dependencies ,  and MOST

The software layer of a mobile app , including both proprietary modules and open-source dependencies , generates IP clearance obligations that most developers address inadequately or not at all.

India: Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison and SDK Integration Risk

Indian courts have adopted the Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison (AFC) test for software copyright infringement ,  derived from the US Second Circuit’s decision in Computer Associates International Inc v Altai Inc. Under this test, the court abstracts the software into structural layers, filters out non-protectable elements, and compares the remaining protectable expression.

The AFC framework creates specific risk for mobile apps that integrate third-party payment SDKs, analytics engines, or recommendation algorithms. If an integrated SDK module is later claimed by its original developer to have been incorporated without valid licensing, the AFC analysis will apply to determine whether the integration constitutes an infringing derivative work. Given the maturity of India’s software engineering workforce, documented instances of such retrospective claims exist.

Indonesia: GPL Enforcement Vacuum

Indonesia represents the most legally uncertain jurisdiction in the region for open-source licence enforcement. Article 40(1)(s) of Copyright Law No 28/2014 acknowledges computer programs as copyrightable works, but there is effectively no judicial precedent on the enforceability of copyleft licences, GPL, AGPL,  or LGPL , in Indonesian courts.

A mobile app incorporating GPL-licensed components that is commercially distributed without satisfying GPL disclosure obligations is technically in breach of the GPL’s terms. In a jurisdiction with strong enforcement, this constitutes copyright infringement. In Indonesia, the absence of precedent means enforcement is theoretically possible but operationally uncertain. This is not a green light; it is an unquantified risk that a sophisticated rights holder such as the Software Freedom Conservancy could choose to test.

Vietnam: MOST Filing and Technology Transfer Classification

Vietnam’s Law on Technology Transfer creates a compliance layer that sits on top of software copyright. When a foreign entity deploys software functionality into Vietnam as part of a commercial service, the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) may classify the arrangement as a technology transfer transaction, triggering mandatory notification and review obligations.

Whether a SaaS deployment or app distribution constitutes a ‘technology transfer’ depends on whether it involves ‘the transfer of technical know-how or the right to use technological methods’ under the statutory definition. A cloud-based app that enables Vietnamese users to access proprietary algorithmic features, including AI-driven personalisation, payment processing logic, or content recommendation systems, could on a broad reading fall within this definition.

The established compliance posture is MOST notification for significant software module deployments ,  even where the transfer classification remains uncertain. Failure to notify creates regulatory exposure that is distinct from and additional to any copyright clearance issues.

Open – Source License Risk Matrix

Licence	India	Indonesia	Vietnam	Notes
MIT / BSD	Low	Low	Low	Permissive terms respected across all three markets
Apache 2.0	Low	Low	Low	Patent grant clause provides additional protection
LGPL	Medium	Medium	Medium	Dynamic linking exception applicable; verify integration method
GPL v2 / v3	High	High*	High	*No Indonesian precedent; GPL treated as private contract only
AGPL	Highest	Highest	Highest	Network use triggers copyleft; legal opinion required in all markets

B2B Aggregator Models: Coverage Gaps and the Territorial Exclusion Problem

B2B aggregator platforms, Merlin (independent label collective), Believe Digital, FuGa on the music side; Getty Images Enterprise and Shutterstock Premier on the visual side, offer what appears to be the operational solution to multi-region clearance complexity: a single deal, a global catalogue, and a comprehensive indemnification clause.

The indemnification is only as wide as the aggregator’s actual sub-publisher or sub-licensor network , and the territorial exclusion clauses in standard agreements carve out precisely the CMO-level public performance rights that generate the greatest liability exposure in India, Indonesia, and Vietnam.

Merlin’s standard licensing structure is instructive. A platform that signs a Merlin agreement gains access to a substantial portion of global independent music catalogue. What the agreement does not cover, as the fine print makes clear , is the territory-specific public performance right,  which must be cleared through the relevant territorial CMO: IPRS and PPL in India,  LMKN and WAMI in Indonesia,  VCPMC and RIAV in Vietnam. A Merlin deal without direct territorial CMO agreements leaves a streaming app uncleared for public performance in all three markets simultaneously.

The visual aggregator problem is structurally analogous. A Getty Enterprise Agreement covers rights Getty controls or sub-licences. It does not guarantee that the underlying model releases, property releases, or Article 12 consent obligations under Indonesian law are satisfied, nor does it address Indian Section 57 moral rights exposure arising from subsequent modification of licensed assets.

The operational principle: treat global aggregator coverage as a necessary but not sufficient condition. Map each aggregator’s territorial exclusions explicitly against the target deployment markets. Build direct CMO and rights-holder relationships to fill the identified gaps. The indemnification clause in a global B2B licence is a last-resort recourse mechanism that activates after liability has already crystallised.

Statutory Exceptions: What the Clearance Strategy Cannot Rely On

Every copyright clearance strategy needs a defensive layer , the statutory exceptions and doctrines a platform can invoke when facing an infringement claim. In India ,  Indonesia ,  and Vietnam ,  the defensive landscape is consistently narrower and more commercially hostile to platform operators than Western legal teams expect.

India: Section 52 Closed List

Section 52 of the Indian Copyright Act 1957 provides an exhaustive list of acts that do not constitute infringement. Indian courts have consistently held that Section 52 is a closed list, not an open-ended standard. There is no Indian equivalent of the US fair use doctrine’s four-factor test ,  and no transformative use doctrine.

Caching, transient reproduction,  and thumbnail generation , standard mobile app infrastructure , are not cleanly enumerated in Section 52. The Delhi High Court has on occasion applied purposive interpretation to extend coverage to platform caching activities ,  but this cannot be relied upon as a clearance strategy for commercial deployments.

Indonesia: Commercial Monetisation Invalidates Public Interest Exception

Article 44 of Copyright Law No 28/2014 permits use of works without authorisation for educational,  research,  and news reporting purposes. The exception has a bright-line boundary: the moment an application is monetised, through advertising, premium subscriptions, or in-app purchases, the public interest exception becomes entirely unavailable.

This is not a grey area open to argument. A freemium app with even a single paid tier cannot invoke the Article 44 exception for any feature, including features available to free-tier users. The operational implication is that commercial apps in Indonesia essentially cannot rely on statutory exceptions at all: full clearance or abstention is the only viable approach.

Vietnam: Three-Step Test and Transient Copies

Vietnam’s Amended IP Law directly codifies the Berne Convention’s Three-Step Test in Article 25. This permits use of copyrighted works without authorisation only in cases that do not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rights holder ,  within specifically enumerated exceptions.

Vietnamese courts have been willing to recognise that certain technical copies made during content delivery, ephemeral network transmissions, CDN caching , may qualify as incidental copies under Article 25. This provides marginally more operational flexibility than India’s closed list. However ,  the commercial exploitation caveat applies: incidental copies that are integral to a revenue-generating service may fail the ‘unreasonable prejudice’ prong of the Three-Step Test.

Comparative Clearance Matrix: India ,  Indonesia ,  and Vietnam

The matrix below synthesises the key clearance dimensions across all three jurisdictions and asset categories.

Dimension	India	Indonesia	Vietnam
Music CMOs	IPRS (composition/publishing); PPL (master recording)	LMKN (composition); WAMI / ASIRINDO (label / related rights)	VCPMC (author rights); RIAV (phonogram / related rights)
Licence Types Required	Mechanical + Sync + Master (3 separate streams)	Mechanical + Neighbouring Rights + Master	Reproduction + Performance + Master; MOST notification for cross-border SaaS
Visual Moral Rights	Section 57 ICA 1957: inalienable post-assignment; waiver contested	Art 5–6 ,  Law 28/2014: perpetual; portrait right under Art 12	Arts 19–21 Amended IP Law: waiver possible; COV registration fortifies claim
Work-for-Hire	Partial recognition; moral rights survive assignment	Employer owns economic rights; moral rights retained by creator	Contract-dependent; COV registration creates legal presumption
Software Infringement Test	Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison (adopted from Computer Associates v Altai)	No precedent; courts apply expression vs idea test ad hoc	Functional + structural similarity; MOST may classify as technology transfer
GPL / Copyleft	Enforceable as contract; non-disclosure = civil infringement	No judicial precedent; violation = breach of contract at best	MOST scrutiny of copyleft in foreign licensed software; MOST filing may be required
Statutory Exceptions	Section 52 ICA: closed exhaustive list; no transformative doctrine	Art 44: public interest exception void once app is monetised	Art 25: Three-Step Test codified; transient / incidental copies only
Aggregator Gap	Sub-publisher carve-outs common; direct IPRS / PPL deals needed	Regional exclusions frequent; LMKN mandates direct CMO registration	Global licences carry no VCPMC / RIAV recognition; local direct deals required
Injunctive Relief	Anton Piller-style orders available via Delhi / Bombay High Courts	Commercial courts; enforcement inconsistent outside Jakarta	Preliminary injunction requires COV registration certificate

Building the Clearance Workflow: Practical Steps for Mobile App Teams

Based on the foregoing analysis,  the following sequential clearance workflow applies to a mobile app targeting all three markets simultaneously.

Step 1 Asset Inventory and Categorisation

Before any clearance activity begins,  conduct a full audit of all copyright-protected materials in the application: in-app music tracks and ambient audio, all visual assets including UI components from third-party libraries,  all third-party software modules, SDKs, and open-source dependencies. Categorise each asset by type, rights ownership, and current licence status.

Step 2 CMO Registration and Direct Licence Agreements

Establish direct licence relationships with IPRS and PPL in India,  LMKN and WAMI/ASIRINDO in Indonesia,  and VCPMC and RIAV in Vietnam. Do not assume that a global aggregator agreement provides territorial CMO coverage,  it does not. Budget for ongoing royalty reporting obligations to each body.

Step 3 Design Contractor Agreements

Ensure all design contractor agreements contain express moral rights waiver clauses (India) ,  confirmation that model releases covering Article 12 (Indonesia) have been obtained for any identifiable individuals depicted,  and copyright assignment provisions. Register core UI assets with the COV before the Vietnamese app launch.

Step 4 Open-Source Compliance Audit

Conduct a licence inventory of all open-source components using a software composition analysis tool. Segregate GPL and AGPL components and assess whether copyleft obligations can be satisfied without compromising proprietary features. For Vietnam,  assess whether any component triggers MOST notification obligations.

Step 5 MOST Notification Assessment (Vietnam)

For each software module that involves transfer of proprietary algorithmic functionality to Vietnamese users,  assess whether MOST notification is required. Document the assessment and file notifications for all borderline or clearly applicable cases. Maintain the notification file as part of the ongoing compliance record.

Step 6 Ongoing Aggregator Gap Review

At each aggregator licence renewal ,  review territorial exclusion clauses against the current deployment footprint. Update direct CMO and rights-holder agreements to fill any newly identified gaps. Record all clearance decisions in a centralised IP register with jurisdiction-specific columns.

Author:- Nikitha Kotteswaran, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us at support@ipandlegalfilings.com or   IP & Legal Filing.

Endnotes

Legislation

1. Copyright Act 1957 (Act No 14 of 1957 ,  as amended by the Copyright (Amendment) Act 2012) (India).
2. Copyright Rules 2013 (Ministry of Human Resource Development ,  Department of Higher Education) (India).
3. Law No 28 of 2014 on Copyright (Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 28 Tahun 2014 tentang Hak Cipta) State Gazette No 266 of 2014 (Indonesia).
4. Law on Intellectual Property No 50/2005/QH11 as amended by Law No 36/2009/QH12 and Law No 42/2019/QH14 (Amended IP Law) (Vietnam).
5. Law on Technology Transfer No 07/2017/QH14 (National Assembly of Vietnam ,  19 June 2017).
6. Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 ,  SI 2021/No 147 (India).

Treaties and International Instruments

1. WIPO Copyright Treaty (adopted 20 December 1996 ,  entered into force 6 March 2002) 2186 UNTS 121.
2. Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) ,  Annex 1C of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (adopted 15 April 1994 ,  entered into force 1 January 1995) 1869 UNTS 299 ,  arts 9–14.
3. Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Paris Act ,  24 July 1971) 828 UNTS 221 ,  arts 9–11bis.

Cases

1. Computer Associates International Inc v Altai Inc 982 F 2d 693 (2d Cir 1992).
2. Indian Performing Right Society Ltd v Eastern India Motion Pictures Association AIR 1977 SC 1443.

Official and Institutional Sources

1. Lembaga Manajemen Kolektif Nasional (LMKN) ,  Official Regulatory Framework (Indonesian Ministry of Law and Human Rights 2015–2023).
2. Copyright Office of Vietnam (COV) ,  Registration Guidelines and Procedures (Ministry of Culture ,  Sports and Tourism 2020).
3. Vietnam Center for Protection of Music Copyright (VCPMC) ,  Collective Licensing Framework and Tariff Schedule (Hanoi 2021).
4. PPL India ,  Standard Licence Agreement for Digital Streaming Platforms (Template ,  2022 Edition).
5. Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) ,  Guidance on Technology Transfer Registration for Foreign Software Deployments (Circular 36/2018/TT-BKHCN) (Vietnam 2018).

Other Sources

Software Freedom Conservancy ,  GPL Compliance Engineering  ,  Annual Report (2023) https://sfconservancy.org accessed 1 June 2025.