Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move: "That the Bill now be read a Second Time"

I am delighted to bring the Copyright and Related Rights (Amendment) Bill 2025 before the House. It is vital that we have an effective legal framework in place to support copyright and intellectual property. It is a necessity for the economic health of the creative sector, which is a significant employer in the State.

This short Bill introduces amendments to the Copyright and Related Rights (Amendment) Act that are necessary, following a Court of Justice of the European Union, CJEU, ruling, delivered in September 2020. This ruling found that Ireland had not adequately transposed a 2006 EU copyright directive on the sharing of royalty payments between producers and performers of recorded music and was not fully compliant with international copyright conventions, the World Intellectual Property Organisation, WIPO, Performances and Phonograms Treaty, WPPT, and the Rome Convention. The State had not: provided clear obligations for producers to share royalties with performers; ensured that equal treatment is provided to nationals of countries outside the European Economic Area, EEA, that are party to international copyright conventions; or specifically provided for how royalty payments are to be shared between performers and producers in the absence of an agreement between them. This Bill will restore Irish legislation - the copyright Act - to full compliance with EU and international law. It sets out a new process for the agreement of division of royalties between music performers and producers, extends application to nationals of countries outside the EEA that are party to international copyright treaties and grants the function of final arbitration of disputes to the Circuit Court.

The Bill contains five sections. Section 1 defines the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 as the principal Act amended by this Bill.

Section 2 amends section 208 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act. This relates to the matter of equitable remuneration as provided for by Directive 2006/115/EC. The amendment provides for the insertion of five new subsections, (3A) to (3E), inclusive, in section 208 and the deletion of the existing subsections (4) to (9), inclusive. The new section 208(3A) provides for a default split of equal parts of payments between producers and performers, less reasonable collecting costs. This default 50-50 split is similarly provided for in two-thirds of EU member states. The new section 208(3B) provides that the proportion of single equitable remuneration payable to the performer and the owner of a sound recording may be agreed by or on behalf of the parties concerned. This is similar to the existing section 208(4). The new section 208(3C) provides that in instances where parties cannot reach agreement, and where at least one party objects to the default arrangement, that party - performer, copyright owner or both - may bring the matter before the Circuit Court to obtain a determination of the manner of the division of the single equitable payment.

Section 3(1) inserts a new section which allows that any applications made under the existing section 208 that have not been finally determined will be transferred to the Circuit Court. Subsections (2) to (4), inclusive, provide for the appeal process on points of law, from the Circuit Court to the High Court, and from the High Court to the Court of Appeal. Section 3(4) also provides that any existing agreements made under the existing section 208(4) will remain valid.

Section 4 provides for an amendment to the definition of “qualifying country” contained in section 287 of the Act to include performers who are residents of countries that are contracting parties to the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty and the Rome Convention. This brings Irish law in line with our international obligations.

Section 5 provides for preliminary and general provisions setting out the Short Title to the Bill and how the Bill is to be commenced. This will be done by an order of the Minister. It is intended that sections 2 and 4 will commence shortly after the Bill is enacted and that a slightly later commencement date will apply in respect of section 3.

An amendment to the Bill is under consideration by the Office of the Attorney General. This would strengthen the appeals process by adding a provision similar to current section 208(6), but linked to the new arrangements provided for in this Bill. This amendment may be presented on Committee Stage.

It is essential that we enact the Bill to ensure that the State is fully compliant with the 2006 EU copyright directive in line with the CJEU's judgment of September 2020. A robust and well-functioning legal framework supporting copyright and intellectual property more broadly is, as already stated, essential for the economic well-being of the creative sector, which employs approximately 80,000 people and which contributes enormous value in terms of creativity and innovation.

I commend the Bill to the House and look forward to an engaging debate with the Deputies present.

Cathy Bennett (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome that the Government is introducing legislation to address issues relating to the incorrect transposition of the EU copyright directive identified by the High Court and the CJEU.

Legislation is necessary. We understand that. A more equitable distribution of royalties is absolutely welcome, but the Bill the Government has brought before the House is poorly thought out, regressive and ill-conceived in terms of the mechanism available to artists to vindicate their right to resolve disputes. The Government is shoehorning into this legislation a change of venue from the Controller of the Intellectual Property Office to the Circuit Court. I cannot see the sense in this. It is at odds with the general policy direction of the Government regarding the courts, whereby alternative dispute resolution mechanisms are encouraged. In this instance, the Government will contribute to the logjam that exists within the courts and possibly negatively impact access to justice due to likely increases in the cost of progressing and resolving a dispute. I do not see why the Government would take such an approach. The Minister of State has not adequately explained or justified that approach, especially in light of the controller's office continuing to handle all intellectual property cases other than music and sound recordings and, most importantly, in light of the lack of engagement with those performers on whom the Bill will impact.

Sinn Féin will support this Bill proceeding to Committee Stage in recognition of the need for legislation in this area and in light of the approach taken in some of its provisions. However, in advance of Committee Stage, I encourage the Minister of State to reflect on the issues highlighted and engage with the representative bodies of those impacted and hear their concerns in full with a view to amending the legislation.

I would like the Minister of State to address the concerns I am raising. What discussion has he had with the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration in relation to this Bill? Will he outline in full the engagement and consultation he has undertaken with the representative bodies and those in the sector? What is the justification for disputes involving music and sound recordings being treated differently from any other type of intellectual property?

Sinn Féin wants to see stronger protection and fairer compensation for artists. In that context, I commend my party colleague and spokesperson on arts and culture Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh on bringing forward the Taxes Consolidation (Rights of Performers and Film Workers) (Amendment) Bill 2025, which would ensure equal treatment for Irish performers compared with their international counterparts and ban the use of buy-out contracts that deny performers ongoing revenue for their work. I also commend an Teachta Ó Snodaigh on his culture and arts policy, not only for being a comprehensive vision for the arts and culture but also for the manner in which he went about developing it. He had meaningful engagement with stakeholders and those it would impact.

If the Minister of State can address the questions I have put to him and learn from the approach taken by an Teachta Ó Snodaigh in terms of speaking to the people that legislation and policy will impact, then this Bill will be a net positive. It is up to the Minister of State now/ I urge him to rise to the occasion.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

While I would usually welcome any move to address some of the lacunas in our copyright law which ensure that creatives do not get their just desserts, there are parts of this Bill that concern me. We only got sight of it for the first time last Friday, and I have made a complaint to the Government Whip about that. The convention is that Bills are produced at least two weeks before they are discussed. That is not a political charge but applies to all TDs. If TDs, including backbenchers and Opposition Deputies, are to do their work properly they need time to address issues contained in legislation.

While this is a short Bill, it provides for fundamental change in terms of the approach to copyright. As the Minister of State mentioned in his introduction, the Irish High Court referred a question to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling on a case taken by the Recorded Artists, Actors and Performers, RAAP, and Phonographic Performance Ireland, PPI. At question in case C was ensuring that those involved were properly funded and proper rights were given. The approach that the Government is taking here is as a result of some of the findings of that court. While the Minister of State is trying to present this legislation as a tidying up of the law and arguing that it is technical a technical measure arising from the case taken by RAAP, the Bill in fact sets out to fundamentally alter how disputes around copyright in music and sound recordings are resolved. Previously, the Controller of the Intellectual Property Office had oversight but all of a sudden we are moving towards the Circuit Court having oversight. That is hugely challenging and is not fully explained here. Indeed, I do not think most people have grasped that fundamental change. Hopefully the Minister of State will elaborate on Committee Stage as to why such a fundamental change is being presented as a minor one. It could have huge cost implications for creatives.

Another concern is the fact that the Government is moving to a system of individual cases. People will have to take individual cases rather than have representative organisations take cases on their behalf. Again, that is a fundamental change. The approach up to now has been mediation and arbitration because once something goes to the courts and the courts have oversight, things become a lot more legalistic and costly. The parties who generally have the funds to take that approach are big companies and those with wealth behind them rather than individual creatives who are producing or writing the music or who benefit in some way from copyright or related laws.

As important as copyright is, this is not an emergency situation. As a result, we could have teased matters out further. I know that pre-legislative scrutiny was waived by the relevant committee, but I do not think it was informed of the fundamental changes provided for in this Bill. If pre-legislative scrutiny had been undertaken, we could have heard various voices comment on this and the Minister of State would have had an opportunity to explain in greater detail the wide-ranging changes that are proposed. The stakeholders should have been consulted. I will continue to engage with them in the coming weeks before we get to Committee Stage, unless that is fast-tracked as well.

I have already spoken to quite a number of stakeholders across the music sector since the Bill was published. While there is consensus that it is broadly welcome that the Government is finally acting on the RAAP case, many of the key players in the sector feel completely blindsided by some of the changes that the Minister of State has suggested, especially in relation to the courts and who can take cases. Why were stakeholders in the industry, particularly the individual representative organisations for creatives, not consulted before the proposed overhaul contained in the Bill was put forward?

The court case made its findings a number of years ago. We have had enough time in which to tease out exactly how to progress this issue and give full effect to the ruling without blindsiding people.

It is worth noting the objectives of the Bill as laid out in the explanatory memorandum. The first objective is that the 2006 copyright rental and lending directive be fully transposed. That is vital. The directive sets out that authors and performers have an unwaivable right to equitable remuneration. We have been making the case for some time that the right to fair remuneration under EU law copyright law must be respected. Last week, the Dáil passed First Stage of the Bill I introduced to ensure respect for the copyright of performers in the film sector when granting tax relief. My proposal was on foot of a campaign by Irish Equity and the cross-party recommendations of the budgetary oversight committee.

Respect for the legal rights of workers should not be optional for employers. Amid all the other scandals engulfing RTÉ, I have heard disturbing reports of the national public broadcaster requesting that performers waive their unwaivable rights to future residual payments by way of so-called buy-out contracts. I raised this directly with RTÉ representatives at the media committee last week. It is worrying that just as the RTÉ solicitor and head of the regulatory section began telling me categorically that the organisation does not engage in this practice, RTÉ's director of video cut her off mid-sentence to state that there are different forms of different contracts which might be required. I did not get what I wanted, which was that RTÉ would be able to fundamentally state that it is not involved in such buy-out contracts. What sort of culture of omertaexists in RTÉ if its own solicitor is cut off while explaining to an Oireachtas committee exactly what has been happening regarding the buying out of people's rights?

The effort to reinforce the rights of performers under EU copyright law in Irish legislation is welcome. I support that aim of the Bill. I also support its second aim, which is to ensure copyright law is compliant with our international obligations under the World Intellectual Property Organization Performances and Phonograms Treaty and the Rome Convention. Nationals of other countries who have signed up to these treaties will now be able to vindicate their rights under Irish law. It is welcome and only right that we recognise the rights of other nationals who avail of those rights in Ireland. However, we need clarity from the Government that the principle of reciprocity will be respected. If Irish nationals from other contracting powers can vindicate their rights here, Irish nationals should also be able to vindicate their rights in those states. That might not need to be stated in the legislation. The Minister of State might clarify whether it is a given in the case of our signing up to these international obligations that all those we are respecting will also respect Irish nationals in such cases.

The third aim of the Bill is to provide for a default equal sharing of royalty payments between producers and performers of sound recordings. This is a commendable and hard-fought win for Irish performers. I commend RAAP on taking its case against the representatives of the major music labels and the State all the way to Europe and winning it. Practices introduced by major record labels had, in effect, reduced the share of earnings for sound recordings paid to performers from what should have been half to approximately 20%. I have heard over the years from recorders and performers about how they have been treated. RAAP, the Irish Music Rights Organisation, IMRO, and Hot Presshave highlighted these issues over the years. It fell on deaf ears in some ways because we were awaiting the ruling of the court, which was made in 2020. We have waited for this Bill and its introduction represents a good day for the music industry as a whole. It clarifies where the funding should go and I hope performers and producers will benefit accordingly. It will make things easier for all.

We welcomed the ruling at the time and we welcome that it is finally being implemented five years later. However, we have concerns, as already stated, regarding the fourth and final objective set out in the Bill, as detailed in the explanatory memorandum, which is to improve the dispute resolution process. I have not seen a clear explanation as to what was faulty about that process or what the problem was with the controller of intellectual property. In the briefing note on the Bill, the Minister indicates that the Department has concluded that the controller of intellectual property is unable to fulfil the function conferred on him by the Copyright and Related Rights Act as he is deemed not to have the necessary judicial competence to exercise that function. Rather than give additional powers to the controller, this function is to be shifted to the Circuit Court. Anybody who knows the courts system in Ireland knows it is slow, burdensome and costly. In recent years, the general trend has been to seek to ensure people do not end up in the courts system. In that context, the other approach of supporting the controller of intellectual property to perform his function would have been more appropriate.

The Minister is not removing all the functions of the controller under the copyright Act. He will still be able to resolve disputes regarding patents and designs, trademarks and copyright, just not in respect of sound recordings. This is odd because dealing with those other issues could also end up requiring the judicial competence we are told the controller does not have in regard to this particular issue. I have not encountered in any of the research I have done recently or in the past any complaints about the controller's role. I do not see what the problem can be. Usually, the approach is that if something is not broken, we should not fix it. I am concerned about this change. Many musicians and performers will see going to court and employing legal counsel to pursue royalties as simply being beyond their means. If securing a few thousand euro requires investing in a solicitor and a barrister to pursue the matter in the Circuit Court, the likelihood is that people will not pursue it.

The change in respect of the controller of intellectual property is not the only change. The long-standing framework enshrined in section 208 (4) to (9), inclusive, of the Copyright and Related Rights Act provides for an engagement to take place between a person responsible for playing or broadcasting a recording and a licensing body acting on behalf of copyright owners. These provisions are being deleted and replaced by new subsections (3A) to (3E), inclusive, which not only remove the role of the controller but also remove the role of the licensing bodies. An individual performer who may live off an incredibly precarious income will now have to make a case against an individual copyright owner, which may well be quite a wealthy record label. There is no explanation for this change. The Minister of State might address that when he responds.

The worst thing that can happen is that we discourage those who have particular rights from pursuing those rights where they have been wronged. I do not oppose the Bill but I am concerned at the direction being taken on those two points, namely, the move towards the Circuit Court for dispute resolution and the deletion of the role of organisations that represent artists or performers in respect of copyright.

George Lawlor (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Labour Party will not be opposing this Bill but we feel we need to look more closely at the whole area of copyright in this country. With our myriad of talent, this is an issue that affects not only the music industry, but the broader landscape of creative arts and cultural expression in Irish society. The matter of equitable remuneration for performers and owners of copyrighted sound recordings in Ireland is rightly discussed and decided upon in this Chamber. It is a topic that resonates deeply in an era when digital technology and globalisation have transformed the way we create, consume and distribute music.

To set the stage - no pun intended - let us first define the context of equitable remuneration. At its core, equitable remuneration refers to fair compensation for the contributions of both performers and copyright owners in the production and distribution of sound recordings. In Ireland, as in many countries, this balance remains a contentious issue, particularly as the industry navigates the complexities introduced by streaming services, digital downloads and the ever-evolving landscape of copyright law. Despite their invaluable contributions, many performers and musicians struggle to earn a living from their craft. The platforms that allow their voices to reach us often fail to provide fair compensation, leaving them vulnerable and financially underappreciated. This is not just a matter of financial survival, however. It is about recognising the worth of their talent, creativity and dedication. Artists and musicians are not merely commodities to be used for our benefit. They are the essence of what we are. They bring us together, inspire us and often force us to think about things differently. They challenge us to see the world through different lenses and to embrace new ideas. When we support fair remuneration for artists and musicians, we are not simply advocating for their financial rights. We are investing in our culture, our communities and all around us.

As it stands, the legal framework governing copyrighted sound recordings in Ireland is primarily based on the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000. This legislation provides a foundation for the rights of copyright owners - in most instances, record labels - while also recognising the rights of performers such as musicians and vocalists. However, the actual distribution of revenues generated from sound recordings often raises questions of fairness and equity. Performers who bring artistic works to life frequently find themselves in a precarious position. Although they may receive an initial payment for their performances, the distribution of ongoing revenue generated from streams and sales tends to favour copyright owners, leading to significant disparities in income. This imbalance has sparked calls for reform and advocacy for a more equitable system that recognises the contributions of both parties.

To understand the situation in Ireland better, we need to draw comparisons with other countries that have grappled with similar issues. In particular, we can look at the approaches taken to address equitable remuneration by countries like Sweden, France and the United States. In Sweden, the concept of equitable remuneration has been embraced through a combination of collective bargaining and legislation. The Swedish artists' rights alliance plays a pivotal role in advocating for performers' rights, ensuring they receive a fair share of revenues from sound recordings. This model promotes transparency and accountability, allowing performers to negotiate better terms and conditions in respect of their contributions. The success of Sweden's system suggests that collective action can yield positive outcomes for performers, providing a potential roadmap for us to consider.

France presents a more robust legal framework for performers' rights. This is encapsulated in the droit d'auteur or author's rights system. In 2016, France implemented laws mandating a fair share of revenues for performers from streaming platforms and other digital distributors, thereby acknowledging their essential role in the creative process. This approach has not only benefited performers, but has also led to a more sustainable music ecosystem. Such legislative measures could serve as an inspiration for us here in Ireland and prompt a re-evaluation of our current copyright laws to ensure they adequately protect performers' rights.

While the United States is a global leader in music production and distribution, it presents a different scenario with regard to equitable remuneration. The US operates under a more fragmented system with significant disparities between the rights of performers and those of copyright owners. The Music Modernization Act, passed in 2018, aimed to address some of these issues by improving royalty distribution for songwriters. However, performers still face challenges in securing fair compensation, particularly in the context of streaming. This highlights the importance of ongoing advocacy and reform, a lesson Ireland can learn from the US experience.

As we navigate these discussions, we cannot overlook the profound impact of technology and digital platforms on the music industry. The rise of streaming services such as Spotify, Apple Music and YouTube has fundamentally altered how music is consumed and monetised. While these platforms provide unprecedented access to music for consumers, they also create new challenges for equitable remuneration. In Ireland, performers often find themselves at the mercy of algorithms and payout structures that prioritise volume over fairness. The fraction of a cent received per stream can make it nearly impossible for many artists to sustain a living solely from their recorded music. This situation calls for a re-evaluation of how digital platforms compensate both performers and copyright owners.

Advocacy for fairer distribution models, transparency in royalties and direct licensing agreements could pave the way for a more sustainable music economy in Ireland. The journey towards equitable remuneration for performers in Ireland is not solely the responsibility of us as policymakers or of legal frameworks. It also requires the active engagement of artists, industry stakeholders and advocacy organisations. Groups such as the Musicians' Union of Ireland and Irish Equity have a crucial role to play in raising awareness of the challenges faced by performers and in pushing for the necessary reforms. By fostering dialogue among performers, record labels and streaming services, we can work towards creating an ecosystem that values and compensates artistic contributions fairly. This collaborative effort will not only enhance the livelihoods of performers, but will also enrich our cultural landscape, ensuring that diverse artistic voices continue to thrive.

As we discuss equitable remuneration, it is essential to consider the broader cultural implications. Ireland has a rich musical heritage that is steeped in tradition and innovation. I look forward to welcoming tens of thousands to Wexford to see traditional musicians at Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann in August. Musicians contribute significantly to our national identity and cultural expression. By fostering an environment where performers receive equitable remuneration, we not only support individual artists, but also preserve and promote our cultural legacy.

Equitable remuneration can lead to increased investment in local talent and the creation of new artistic works. When performers are fairly compensated, they are empowered to invest in their craft, to collaborate with others and to take creative risks, which is essential. In turn, this can lead to a flourishing arts scene that benefits not only artists, but also audiences and both local and national economies.

From our discussions here today, it is clear that the introduction of legislation guaranteeing a fair share of revenues for performers from digital platforms is vital. This could evolve, creating a system of equitable remuneration akin to those in France and Sweden, which I have mentioned. We must encourage the establishment and strengthening of collective bargaining agreements that empower performers and their representatives to negotiate fair terms with record labels and digital platforms. We must push for greater transparency in the distribution of royalties from streaming services to ensure that performers receive clear and timely information about their earnings. It is also imperative that we invest in initiatives that support emerging artists and provide them with resources to navigate the challenges of the industry. This could include grants, funding opportunities or mentorship programmes. Campaigns to educate the public about the importance of supporting artists and the impact of equitable remuneration on the cultural landscape would be a most welcome move.

The quest for equitable remuneration for performers and copyright owners of sound recordings in Ireland is an issue that requires collaboration, advocacy and reform. By studying and learning from the experiences of other countries and engaging in meaningful dialogue among stakeholders, we can create a fairer and more sustainable music ecosystem. It must be remembered that music is not merely a product. It is an expression of us all, a reflection of our culture and a source of joy and connection. By ensuring that performers receive the compensation they deserve, we honour and value their contributions and safeguard the future of our vibrant artistic community.

Ruairí Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We all know that there have been very significant issues with copyright and making sure that artists have a framework within which to work. We know of the initiative during the Covid pandemic and beyond to ensure some element of payment. There is a significant lobby in that regard. It is about artists in general having a sustainable framework for their work.

That needs to be offered if we are to ensure that people can express themselves culturally, which is vital.

We are talking specifically about copyright. We will permit this Bill to go to the next Stage and may table amendments on Committee Stage. This is all happening on foot of a particular court case. There have been issues here. We are transposing the EU rental and lending directive. It is all about clarifying how royalty payments from recorded music are divided between performers and producers. This is all happening very fast, having taken a long time to get this point, so I think there could be anomalies here. There could be issues. An Teachta Ó Snodaigh spoke about the fact that there had been a lack of engagement with the sector. That needs to be followed up on. I have already stated that the short timeframe will create difficulties. Any solution that involves putting things through the logjammed courts system in Ireland is not anything I would necessarily be very hopeful about. I would expect there would be some element of industry pushback but I get what is intended here. We need to ensure that is what happens, so we will need to make sure the due diligence is carried out and that, as I said, our particular issues and the issues that recording artists may have would be addressed.

There is a wider issue that needs to be dealt with. Deputy Ó Snodaigh spoke about his legislation, which relates to the campaign that has been carried out about Irish Equity. It is about ensuring fairness and ensuring that payments and royalties are maintained as regards work that has been done. They speak about the fact that there are better frameworks in much of Europe, in Britain and in other places and, as I said, huge anomalies that need to be dealt with.

We know the other issues within the film sector, raised particularly by crew. We have seen cases that have been taken as far as the High Court. This issue falls back to the Government around section 481. While we all think section 481 has played a huge role as regards the film sector, it is about ensuring that we have a thriving film sector and that quality employment is introduced. I, Deputy Ó Snodaigh and, particularly, Deputy Boyd Barrett and others have brought up the issues of blackballing and blacklisting within the industry. They need to be addressed. The issue is that production companies draw down the section 481 money but the DACs are set up as financial devices. Then, once the film is dealt with, the DACs are disappeared, and with them go all the responsibility and all the employment rights that should exist.

There is a wider issue the State needs to look at as regards making sure that when we talk about recording artists or TV and film, we make the framework and the operations in Ireland a lot better. That will ensure sustainability of the industry. We need to look after our workers because that cannot necessarily happen with the way things are constructed at the moment.

Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to speak to today's legislation. While I welcome the Bill, I will speak to some of the broader issues it touches on and deals with and some of the issues that come before us today. They fall into the categories of fair remuneration for fair work, first and foremost, and some of the lessons we should be able to learn around the transposition of the legislation and the errors that were made. I wish to speak also to the fragility of the arts and the creative sector, particularly in light of the wider technological context at the moment and what we see coming down the tracks in terms of artificial intelligence, in particular. Finally, I will speak about access to justice and fair procedure.

Starting with fair remuneration for fair work, it is really unfortunate that we have had this state of affairs that has left uncertainty as to what is an equitable split in royalties until now. That certainty about the defaults gives some small protection against being taken advantage of, particularly for these artists, and it is an issue which obviously disproportionately affects people in the arts sector, which is already a sector where the paid-for work they do is often inadequate. I have many friends working in the music business and the movie business and it is just so difficult to see the commitment and the dedication that are required and the personal sacrifice people have to make to simply make a living within these sectors. As a society, we need to value this work and ensure cothrom na Féinne.

I understand that coming off the back of a court ruling, there was limited consultation available for this legislation, but I am keen to ensure we collectively engage with stakeholders ahead of this Bill becoming law. Coming into politics from the human rights and equality sector, we always talked in that field about how when we develop law and policy in this country, it is so important that those people who will be most impacted by that law or policy are consulted throughout the development of that legislation. It is so important we make sure that we properly engage in meaningful consultation with those in the arts sectors who will be most affected by this and who, as we have heard from other speakers, have been somewhat blindsided by some features within this Bill. While core parts of this Bill are a legal requirement to transpose the directive, we should explore ways in which we can strengthen it even further.

That raises two points, and they are the next two I want to explore. They are the lessons learned around the transposition and then, as I mentioned, the fragility of the arts sector itself. As regards the lessons to be learned around the transposition, we have had, due to this issue, over 20 years during which artists and producers have had uncertainty about the equitable division of royalties. The correct transposition is welcome, but we should not have to see these things come about due to court rulings. It is really important with this directive and all directives that we get it right the first time, and part of getting it right is that consultation phase. That is what will help us get it right and learn from situations like this in order that we can fulfil our EU obligations and our wider obligations to the people affected by the laws we pass.

Then there is the fragility I have referred to within the arts sector. As we know, it is already hard enough to make a living from creative work, and royalties and the like can be the difference for people in the arts between paying their bills and not. They sustain people in that craft which we all benefit from. That is important to remember because the arts sector itself is a small enough percentage of our population, but all of us, to an individual, consume arts and culture in different ways in our daily lives and we all benefit from it. "Ag tacú leis na healaíona", as the RTÉ ad that is on all the time goes. We are all consumers of our arts. It is vital that we do better as a society to support artists through measures around royalties but also wider arts funding and schemes like the basic income for the arts. I am a member of the culture, communications and sport committee and very much welcome the fact that today, or in recent days, we have heard that it will be extended. I will be looking for an expansion of that programme to make sure it reaches more and more artists into the future.

Looking at this legislation, however, it seems to me that we are rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic because this is all happening against the backdrop of a world where more and more people are having their copyright violated. I was recently at an AI event where one of the contributors explained that we have 12 Booker Prize winners in Ireland and all 12 works have been taken by Meta to feed its AI machine without the permission of a single one of those authors. This is their voices being stolen, their work being used without their permission, and people are profiting off that voice without giving them their fair share. This sits within that wider context and something that we have to look towards much more progressive legislation for. Not only must they continue to contend with online piracy, but AI companies are illegally scraping that work, training models on their voices, their music, their words, their art, in order that they can feed artificial intelligence machines which will pump out artificial culture and artificial art. We need a regulatory framework that will keep pace with those new forms of theft of work. If we do not protect the right of creators to their creative work, we will see an atrophy of that creative work and such a loss to our culture here in Ireland.

Finally, I wish to speak about access to justice and fair procedure which is a feature of this Bill. The responsibility for adjudicating these matters under this Bill is to be moved to the Circuit Court. While that is a step which strengthens fair procedure, it is vital that the system does not preclude those without the means to take a case from the getting justice they deserve. Civil legal aid in this country is inadequate. We are talking about a group of people who are often just trying to scrape by and cannot access expensive legal representation. We have many complex areas of law that can be impenetrable to ordinary people but we cannot let that complexity unfairly deny people the chance to use that law and access justice. Without adequate civil legal aid and timely handling of cases, people cannot afford to use the courts to seek protection even when they have a good case. Those are the features I wanted to raise. I welcome that this error in transposition is being remedied. I look forward to seeing future legislation and a framework that will support artists in the protection of their work.

Catherine Ardagh (Dublin South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As no other Members are offering, the Minister of State has ten minutes to conclude.

Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank all Deputies for their engagement and comments on Second Stage of this Bill. I am delighted to see the aims of the Bill are not opposed and are supported. I reiterate what I said earlier about the importance of this Bill to ensure Ireland is fully compliant with EU and international law. The Bill sets out a new framework and process for the agreement of the division of royalties between music, performers and producers. That is the scope. It extends applications to nationals outside the EEA who are party to the international copyright treaties and grants the function for final arbitration on disputes to the Circuit Court. It also enhances protections. For those who say what we are doing is ill-thought-out, at the core of this Bill is enhancing protection for both parties - performers and producers. It is to ensure there is a well-functioning legal framework in place to support those employed in the creative sector - more than 80,000 people who contribute significantly economically with creativity and innovation - in the future.

I will address some of the areas raised. I am sure we will follow up on Committee Stage. To respond to Deputy Ó Snodaigh, the general scheme was published on the Department's website in November 2024. I acknowledge the delay in the publication of the Bill. In future, it needs to be accepted that there should be ample time for Deputies to consider the Bill. It was only published last Monday. The general scheme was also sent to all stakeholders over seven months ago. That sets out the intended needs in the Bill. The two parties, the performers and producers, were contacted by the Department. Officials and I are available to discuss any issues they may wish to raise or are affected by in the sections which are now being included in the Copyright Act. Legal advice was sought. We carefully considered this Bill with the Office of the Attorney General. It was highlighted that the controller of the intellectual property is recognised as not having the necessary judicial competencies to exercise the function conferred on him by the current section 208 of the Copyright Act. We are strengthening that. The Bill also encourages both parties to reach agreement outside court. To say we want to contribute to the logjams in the courts is not the case. In that instance, there would be a default 50:50 split, which is the norm in other member states of the European zone. The Department also consulted relevant Ministers across Government, including the Department of justice with regard to the measures included.

On the issue raised about platforms, that will be considered in the context of the review of the European Commission and the Digital Services Act. Collective action is also possible in Ireland. Nothing prevents parties from negotiating and agreeing between them. As a Government, we are introducing an action plan on collective bargaining. The questions raised have been constructive, which I welcome. We have noted the areas raised and we look forward to engaging with Deputies further in regard to this important legislation on the various Stages of the legislative process.