Introduction: Digital academic-sharing platforms such as Academia.edu facilitate the dissemination of scholarly works but raise legal questions concerning copyright licensing, commercial exploitation, and the protection of authors’ economic rights. Although Indonesian Law Number 28 of 2014 on Copyright establishes a legal framework for copyright protection, its application to digital platforms requires further legal analysis. Purposes of the Research: This study examines the protection of academic authors’ economic rights on Academia.edu and analyzes the legal conditions under which the platform may incur liability for unauthorized commercial exploitation of copyrighted works. Methods of the Research: This study employs normative legal research using statutory and conceptual approaches. Primary legal materials include Indonesian copyright legislation and relevant international copyright instruments, supported by secondary legal materials on copyright licensing and digital platform liability. The materials are analyzed qualitatively through legal interpretation and systematic legal argumentation. Findings of the Research: The analysis indicates that authors’ economic rights are protected under Indonesian copyright law, while the legality of a platform’s use of uploaded works depends on the scope of the applicable license, the identity of the rights holder, and the nature of the exploitation. Platform liability cannot be established solely from the existence of commercial services; it requires an assessment of contractual authorization, the relevant legal obligations, and evidence of infringement. Conclusion: Effective protection requires transparent licensing terms, accessible complaint and takedown mechanisms, stronger copyright awareness among academics, and clearer standards for assessing digital platform liability. This study contributes a normative framework for evaluating the relationship between authors’ economic rights and platform accountability in digital academic publishing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Batmomolin et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: