Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister, Deputy Burke. He has ten minutes to make his opening remarks.

Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am pleased to be in the Seanad today to present the Copyright and Related Rights (Amendment) Bill 2025 for consideration on Second Stage. The Bill was published on 13 June 2025 and initiated in the Dáil on 19 June. Committee Stage took place at the Select Committee on Enterprise, Tourism and Employment on 17 July and 12 November. The Bill was passed by Dáil Éireann on 21 January 2026.The short Bill introduces amendments to the Copyright and Related Rights Act, as amended, that are necessary following the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered in September 2020. The ruling found that Ireland had not adequately transposed a 2006 EU copyright directive, the rental and lending directive, in relation to 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 Organization Performances and Phonograms Treaty, WTTP, and the Rome Convention.

The State had not provided clear obligations for producers to share royalties and performers and we had not ensured that equal treatment is provided to nationals outside the European Economic Area that are party to international copyright conventions. The Bill will restore Irish legislation, the copyright Act, in this regard to full compliance with EU international law. The Bill sets out a new process for the agreement of division of royalties between music performers and producers, extends application to nationals outside the EEA that are party to international copyright treaties and grants the function of final arbitration of disputes to the Circuit Court.

I will now briefly set out the Bill section by section. 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 Act. This relates to the matter of equitable remuneration as provided for by Directive 2006/115/EC, the rental and lending directive. It provides for the deletion of the existing subsections 208(4) to 208(9) and the insertion of five new subsections, subsections (3A) to (3E), inclusive.

These new sections are as follows. 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. 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, similarly to the current 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 50:50 arrangement, that party - either performer, copyright owner or both - may bring the matter before the Circuit Court to obtain a determination on the manner of the division of the single equitable payment.

On Report Stage in the Dáil, a further amendment to section 2 was passed. This amendment provided for the insertion of three further subsections, namely, subsections (3F), (3G) and 3(H). These subsections ensure that where an adjudication has been made by the Circuit Court, either party may apply to the court for a further determination if circumstances have changed, provided at least one year has passed since the original ruling.

Section 3(1) inserts a new section, which allows that any applications made under the existing section 208, and which have not been fully determined, will be transferred to the Circuit Court. Sections 3(2) to 3(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) provides that any existing agreements made under the current section 208(4) remain valid.

During the Bill's passage through Dáil Eireann, a lot of attention was addressed to the fact that the Bill removes the function of final arbitration in disputes from the Controller of Intellectual Property and transfers this function to the Circuit Court. This is viewed by some as disadvantaging performers.Let me be clear. The Bill, in providing a clear 50:50 default sharing of payments between performers and producers, will make it highly unlikely that disputes as to the sharing of equitable remuneration will occur precisely because the 50:50 default is enshrined in the law. Cases requiring an application to the Circuit Court should therefore only arise in exceptional circumstances.

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 of the Bill provides for preliminary and general provisions setting out the Short Title of the Bill and how the Bill is 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 a slightly later commencement date will apply for section 3.

It is essential that we enact this Bill to ensure that the State is fully compliant with the 2006 EU copyright directive as found by the Court of Justice of the European Union judgment of September 2020. A robust and well-functioning legal framework supporting copyright and intellectual property more broadly is essential for the economic well-being of the creative sector, which employs approximately 80,000 people in this country and contributes enormous value in terms of creativity and innovation. I commend the Bill to the House and look forward to engaging with the Senators on this matter.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Deputy Pat the Cope Gallagher and his family members to the Distinguished Visitors Gallery. I am sure they are future politicians in the making. I hope they enjoy their visit.

Linda Nelson Murray (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the Chamber to discuss this very important Bill. I will begin with a quote from Robin Sharma: "Passion plus production equals performance". I also love the quote from Steve Martin where he says, "Talking about music is like dancing about architecture". I am glad to get the opportunity to speak on the Bill. It is legislation that marks an important step forward in supporting creators' performance and rights holders across Ireland.

Copyright is really about fair recognition and fair reward. This Bill recognises that the world of creative work and intellectual property is changing very quickly. It ensures that Ireland's copyright law is compliant with our international and European legal obligations. A key positive in this Bill is that it strengthens equitable remuneration for performers and producers of sound recordings. It clarifies how moneys earned from the use of recordings should be shared. This Bill is necessary because Irish copyright law was found to be defective by the CJEU in a judgment in 2020. Ireland should enact this Bill without delay to ensure that our law is compliant with EU and international obligations, particularly as our EU Presidency approaches.

The scope of the Bill is very narrow. It is a short and targeted Bill. It is responding to matters raised in this case. The scope of the Bill was agreed by a Government decision. I welcome the Bill for a number of reasons. It corrects outdated parts of Irish copyright law. These changes help to ensure that performers have the legal protections and rights that Ireland is obliged to provide under EU and global law. It brings Irish law into proper alignment with EU directives and international treaties. It strengthens our cultural economy and reduces legal uncertainty, which is again very important. It honours creators by giving them a clearer and fairer way to share in the rewards that art generates. Under the proposed changes, the law will start from a presumption of a 50-50 split of the revenues between performers and producers unless an alternative is agreed, and it provides a fair dispute process if they cannot agree. This is designed to make sure performers get a fair share of income from users of their recordings.

Historically, some performers have been required to sign buyout contracts that give away their rights. These contracts can leave performers without ongoing payments even when the work continues to earn money. This Bill seeks to address that imbalance by giving performers the legal right to retain moneys that they rightly earn. As Irish director Dearbhla Walsh said when talking about the film industry, "I think Ireland is having a moment." She was referring to the film and TV sector in Ireland, which is set to contribute more than €1 billion to the economy annually and supports the equivalent of 10,000 full-time jobs. The growth of the Irish film industry has been attributed to three decades of sustained investment, support and training, along with generous tax incentives.This Bill, similarly, supports Ireland's vibrant arts, music and creative sectors ensuring that performers and producers are better protected and rewarded. It is important to recognise how these laws affect real artists. There are rapid technological changes affecting copyright today, especially developments in AI and digital platforms that create and disseminate content in ways that were unimaginable just a decade ago. Some creators feel that further reform is needed to make sure large digital platforms and AI systems respect their rights consistently and that our laws provide clear mechanisms for enforcement and transparency. However, right now this Bill represents meaningful progress. It honours creative labour, brings our laws into harmony with international standards and strengthens Ireland's place as a home for creators and culture.

Ollie Crowe (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister, Deputy Burke, for joining us this afternoon in the Chamber. Fianna Fáil welcomes and supports this Bill, the purpose of which, as the Minister outlined, is to address a gap in the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000, as amended, due to the incorrect transposition of an EU copyright directive. The gap was identified following a European Court of Justice decision delivered in September 2020 and a subsequent High Court decision in February 2021. The case was essentially about the distribution of royalty payments earned from users of recorded music between music producers and performers.

It is a short Bill but it is an important area. It is essential that we have an effective and fair legal framework in place to support copyright and intellectual property. As Members will be aware, Ireland has a fantastic reputation across the globe for the arts. We want to ensure that continues to be the case and we continue to encourage creativity to blossom in this country. As the Minister has said previously, the sector makes a very significant contribution to the Irish economy. Arts Council research published last year showed that the total spend associated with attending arts events in Ireland is over €1.5 billion annually. This includes a significant indirect economic benefit. Beyond direct ticket sales, an additional €664 million is spent in the broader economy on services related to arts events including in hotels, restaurants and bars across the country.

The legal framework in terms of copyright and intellectual property is strengthened and clarified by this Bill which helps the creative sector and will aid the sector in continuing to make a substantial contribution to the Irish economy as a whole. As the Minister will be aware, one of the major issues which came from the 2020 European Court of Justice case I referenced earlier and which has continued to generate debate during the progress of this Bill is that of royalties from non-EU countries. The court ruled that EU member states must pay royalties to performers and producers from non-EU countries if those countries are signed up to certain international copyright treaties. The difficulty arises where some of these non-EU countries, most notably the United States, do not fully pay equivalent royalties to EU performers in return. Historically, EU member states were able to address this by simply taking a reciprocal approach and limiting payments to performers from countries that did not treat EU artists equally. However the court ruled that EU member states could no longer take that action on their own as this is an area of law where there is a collective European approach. The decision to take reciprocal action must be done at an EU level. The court’s decision causes an obvious unfairness in the absence of European action in this area, as the result is that EU countries must now share royalty payments more broadly with non-EU performers, even when the same does not apply to EU performers in non-EU countries. This has resulted in significant income losses according to research, with Dutch performers indicating a 16% drop in income. Obviously, as the Minister and Members will appreciate, that is a significant income drop for anyone, including artists.

Given Ireland's reputation for the arts and culture, it would make sense for this to be a priority action for Ireland during our EU Presidency later this year. We are well positioned to win support across member states on this topic and we have no shortage of capable arts advocates who would be willing to share their stories and explain why we need to address this. I am a little surprised it has not already been done, given that the court decision was almost six years ago at this stage. I invite the Minister to give his views on this matter.

This Bill is welcome and needed. It will ensure that Irish copyright legislation is compliant with our international obligations and compliant with EU law. However, I would like to see Ireland lead on addressing the reciprocal royalties issue and take the opportunity the EU Presidency provides to do so.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. Sinn Féin will support the Bill progressing to Committee Stage, when we will likely table amendments to it. However, it is a real shame that there was no pre-legislative scrutiny of this Bill by the enterprise committee. This is detailed and technical work and there would have been great value in the committee hearing the concerns of the representative group, Recorded Artists Actors and Performers, RAAP, and being able to deliberate collectively on this issue. I know that the Minister and the Department have engaged with RAAP on this legislation and I welcome that. However, it is clear that huge concerns remain.

My colleague, Teachta Aengus O Snodaigh, being from a family immersed in the arts and having considerable experience and interest in the topic, has led on this Bill during its passage through the Dáil. It is disheartening that none of Teachta Ó Snodaigh's amendments on Committee or Report stages have been accepted by the Minister. That was a mistake and could lead to a situation in which additional legislation is required to plug the gaps further down the line.

The sharing of royalties between producers and performers is required by law when music is played or performed in public. Unfortunately, the Bill does not provide sufficient clarity on how this sharing should take place where there is a dispute. There are two essential problems with the Bill. On a technical level, it is not clear about what it purports to achieve and on a political level, the Bill ignores a fundamental injustice and unfairness that has perpetuated in the music industry for more than a decade now.

In the 12 years since PPI, which is the record labels' representative body in Ireland, unilaterally changed the system for distributing performance royalties, RAAP has seen the performers’ share of revenues drop to less than 25% of the money collected by PPI, instead of the 50% to which performers are entitled. RAAP has paid out €120 million to artists since it was founded in 2001. It brings €3 into Ireland for every €1 remitted abroad. PPI represents record companies and music producers, from small record labels to the big three, Universal, Warner and Sony. Under Irish law, PPI has the sole right to collect these royalties and is then obliged to discharge the performers’ share through RAAP. Both bodies had an agreement which operated well from 2001 to 2013 based on the number of qualifying tracks played each year. In 2014, PPI decided unilaterally to change the methodology for payment to RAAP. The bodies have been in dispute since and the matter is moving towards a decision in the courts. It is RAAP’s strong contention that artists and performers now receive closer to 20% than 50% of the fund collected by PPI under the new method of calculation. The Government has ignored all of this in its current legislative approach. The Minister and departmental officials have drafted narrow, technical legislation under the guise of implementing a ruling of the European Court of Justice in a case that was actually taken by RAAP. The Bill was drafted by a Government that is blind to the blatant unfairness that persists in the distribution of performance royalties in Ireland today, a problem which has no parallel anywhere else in the European Union. It does little to help musicians and performers. It does not address the imbalance of power that has crept in between the record labels’ body, PPI, and the performers’ representative, RAAP, when it comes to distributing royalties rightly due for public and broadcast performance. It exacerbates an already bad situation by removing the tried and trusted forum for resolving disputes over payment, the Controller of Intellectual Property, and forces individual artists down the prohibitively expensive route of bringing their dispute to the Circuit Court.

In his statement the Minister relied very heavily on the 50:50 default but he must recognise that this is at the end of a lengthy and costly legal process which clearly favours the more well resourced record companies over individual artists. In a review of an earlier copyright directive, the European Commission has said that legislative wording that does not achieve its objective is not only not fit for purpose but is not in compliance with European law. The Copyright and Related Rights (Amendment) Bill 2025 purports to bring equity to the distribution of royalties between performers and the record labels but it fails to do this in practice and without radical change, it will further impair performers’ right to remuneration for their work.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will add to what has been said in terms of the general welcome for the stated intentions of the legislation and to highlight some of the areas of concern, as outlined by my colleague, Senator Black, who has great personal experience in this area and has worked with many performers.

The performers I have spoken to have highlighted their concerns that there could be inadvertent consequences from how the Bill is currently worded, in particular section 2(a) and the proposed subsection (3A). The risk is that we could end up in a scenario where there is a 25% performer outcome rather than 50%. Effectively, the revenues could get split twice – split 50:50 and then split again. What we and the performers are looking for is a copper-fastening of the principle of 50%, except where it has otherwise been agreed by both parties that the assumption should be that 50% of the revenues are for performers, other than in cases of associated documented costs. The core point is the 50:50 piece. Performers point out that where the 50:50 principle is in effect, working and established, the role of the controller becomes more straightforward and should, therefore, be retained.

The other point we have heard from performers, artists and recorded voice performers in general relates to the role of the controller.The controller is somebody who is able to understand, fully implement and, in an independent way, apply those principles in terms of the shares of revenue. Among the points they made is that section 4 of the Bill does not track the many points of attachment in terms of determining the beneficiaries of the right. It was highlighted in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, CJEU, in September 2020 there is a risk that certain performers could fall through the cracks and be unrecognised and unprotected unless that is addressed and corrected. Similarly they address the issue that if we move things away from the controller to the Circuit Court, it is bringing a much more adversarial, expensive and almost unpredictable set of measures to be applied to disputes. I am aware of an argument that has been made by the Minister of State, Deputy Niamh Smyth, previously. I am looking at a briefing provided by recorded artists, actors and performers. She stated:

The nature of the disputes under section 208 often extends beyond the technical scope ... requiring nuanced assessments of fairness, proportionality and contributions of involved parties.[and that falls outside the expertise of the controller].

However, the counterpoint is that if we have clear legislation that is making it clear in terms of the 50% principle being applied, then we do not have a situation in which it is not really appropriate for the Circuit Court either to be trying to give an assessment of who has given most of a contribution, with the potential variability of that. If we have a controller whose job is literally this, whose focus is in looking to music and acting, to this area of production, they have the expertise for ensuring a consistency of assessment. If they have a clear remit in terms of the 50% rule, we should not be looking to the court, except in very particular circumstances of difficulties in terms of the arbitration assessment or adjudication in relation to the arbitration of disputes around levels of contribution. By having that 50% copper-fastened and by allowing the controller, who has the comparative experience right across the board, is looking at cases like this all the time and is independent, we move towards something that can be functional. The alternative is a situation whereby in order to get their share, people will have to potentially go through the Circuit Court, explain the nature of their work and their contribution and have potentially quite differential determinations being made in that kind of a context. I urge the Minister to make sure that the role of the controller is reasserted, including in relation to section 208 of this legislation and a firming up of the principle in terms of 50% and measures to address concerns that certain kinds of performers may fall through the cracks and may not be captured in the legislation as drafted. I look forward to further engagement on Committee Stage.

Joe Conway (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Good evening, Minister. I just have one question in relation to this. One of the stated thrusts of the Bill is to improve the dispute resolution process in cases where agreement cannot be reached between producers and performers by substituting the Controller of Intellectual Property with the Circuit Court. To what degree does that improve the resolution process? To the ordinary layman looking at it, the resolution process that entails going into the Circuit Court looks like a much more money-draining device than the Controller of Intellectual Property. What would be the putative relative cost of going through the resolution with the Controller of Intellectual Property vis-à-vis the costs that might be involved in the Circuit Court? For people who are resorting to the resolution process, is the Bill designed inherently to make them think not just once but twice and three times about the feasibility of going to the resolution process? Independent arbitrations like that would seem to be a lot more amenable and a lot less costly. A lot of these artists are fairly strapped for cash and may be setting out on their career. The Circuit Court is the proverbial sledgehammer to kill the fly.

Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senators for their remarks, details and concerns on the Bill and also those who have welcomed the Bill. Senator Crowe raised the issue of third countries. One of the findings of the Court of Justice of the European Union in its ruling in the case which gives rise to this Bill is the issue of national treatment, of nationals of countries party to international conventions and the ability of the EU member states to reciprocate when reservations are entered into by a third country. Allow me to explain. Countries that are party to the international copyright conventions agree to treat nationals of countries that are also party to the agreements in the same way as their own standards and nationals. Some countries chose not to apply all or parts of the WIPO performance. As was required, they notified the WIPO that they were entering into a reservation. The other contracting states could respond to this reservation with reciprocal treatment. This is the case notably in the United States. The US has entered a reservation on payment of equitable remuneration to performers for certain types of broadcasting and communication to the public, notably radio. Other countries, including some in the EU, responded to the reservation by treating US performers in the same way as their nationals and other EU rules. As mentioned earlier, the Court of Justice of the European Union found that EU Directive 2006/115 has to be interpreted in light of the Rome Convention and the WPPT. This means that EU member states must ensure that a single equitable remuneration is paid to performers that are party to the WIPO treaty and they may not limit this to nationals of EU or the European Economic Area, as well as the case in Ireland's copyright legislation. However the court also ruled that EU member states do not have the authority to reciprocate reservations made by third countries. This right may also be exercised at EU level and not by individual member states. This is because it is an area of harmonised EU law according to the EU treaties and the EU has an external competence. As a result of part of the ruling, in many member states royalties have now been shared with third-country performers where they were not previously. In some cases, this has reduced royalty payments to EU artists. Ireland was concerned about this issue and we understand that it is affecting Irish artists as well. However, neither Ireland nor any other EU member state can legislate on a unilateral basis as a result of the decision by the CJEU. The European Commission is actively considering the possible solutions on this issue. I understand that a legislative proposal is being prepared to seek to resolve this issue and we hope it will be published by early 2027.

In relation to the dispute that was raised by Senator Conor Murphy, I do not want to comment on issues that are before the courts, but just to say that the committee waived pre-legislative scrutiny and I have no control over that. The members of the committee took that decision themselves.

On the points raised by Senator Black and Senator Higgins in relation to the functions from the Circuit Court, this point was discussed at length in Dáil Éireann, including a detailed discussion on Committee, Report and Final Stages on the amendments tabled to the Bill. As I have mentioned, the Bill will ensure that for the first time the 50:50 share between producers and performers is enshrined in law. While it is up to the parties, including their representative collective management organisations, to come to an agreement, we expect that in the vast majority of cases the 50:50 split will apply. Cases requiring an application to the Circuit Court should therefore only arise in extremely exceptional circumstances.

I want to reiterate the points made earlier and the rationale for this change. Following legal advice, including from the Office of the Attorney General, the Department determined that the reassignment of adjudicative functions under section 208 of the Act from the Controller of Intellectual Property to the court is both appropriate and legally necessary. Disputes arising under section 208 could potentially extend beyond the technical domain of intellectual property law and require the application of equitable principles including fairness, proportionality and the assessment of relative contributions, matters that are currently judicial in their very nature.The controller's statutory role is primarily administrative and technical. It does not encompass the interpretive discretion or legal authority required to adjudicate on issues of equity. These matters fall outside the controller's institutional expertise. The courts possess the requisite legal infrastructure, procedural safeguards and jurisprudential depth to adjudicate on such disputes. They operate well within an established framework of case law and have a long-standing tradition of applying equitable remedies, ensuring consistency, transparency and legal robustness. This reassignment strengthens the legal integrity of the adjudication process, aligns with constitutional principles of fairness and due process and ensures that complex disputes are resolved by a body with an appropriate legal mandate and expertise. It reflects the considered and proportionate response in what is a rarely occurring type of dispute. As was discussed in the Dáil, no referrals were made to the controller under section 205(5) of the Copyright Act since it was enacted back in 2000 until a dispute arose between a performer and the producer representative organisations which gave rise to the court case that was referred to the European Court of Justice, to which this Bill is an attempt to respond.

The Minister of State, Deputy Smyth, will deal with subsequent Stages of this Bill in the House. In response to Senator Black, I assure her that our officials are at her service and are available to help her and any other Members of the House with any aspects of the Bill.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Linda Nelson Murray (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Next Tuesday.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that agreed? Agreed.