Copyright and Related Rights (Amendment) Bill 2025: Committee Stage Seanad Éireann — 2026-02-24 ============================================================ Alice-Mary Higgins (IND), National University of Ireland I will speak very briefly in support of these amendments proposed by Senators Black, McDowell and Conway. To pick up where Senator Conway left off, this focus on the courts system does seem strange. A lot of this legislation is deriving from the fact that the artists already won their court case. They took the court case. They took it to the European courts and the message that came down was that we needed to have an equitable distribution mechanism. It is almost suggesting that individual artists or groups of performers would now have to continue fighting in each individual instance if they are not happy with the system even though the principle has already been won. I know the Minister of State has said that the Bill will restore compliance with EU and international law but it contains a big hole, in that people may have to continue fighting to be satisfied that they are getting the fair share. In individual instances, they would have relitigate it in the Circuit Court rather than having a trusted system, which is what is being called for. Both amendments look to restore the role of the Controller of Intellectual Property. We have not had significant issues arise. The issues that have arisen are from a situation where producers held an extraordinarily high level of control of being able to tell people what they would get. The controller is not where the problems have arisen, so why this very small role for the Controller of Intellectual Property? Why is the Minister of State avoiding or not accepting these amendments that are looking to strengthen the role of the controller as a trusted body in terms of resolving this dispute, as well as looking to a proper CMO in terms of the original decision? It is telling that the case was won at the European level because of the long-standing principle in Europe of l'exception culturelle . This is the very strongly established principle that certain things can be left for the market to decide but other things are of such collective value that there must be active measures from the state to ensure and protect them. The amendment to ensure that the division is fair is being put to the Minister of State because we cannot rely on simple market dynamics to do that when there is often a huge imbalance of power between starting artists and large production companies. The fact that Europe has pointed to the need to ensure that artists are properly reimbursed and their rights reflected is also a point about the huge value that is brought to us by performers, including voice artists and actors. We are already getting dividends as a society from this that they do not get a share in. When we talk about the money being generated, the minimum should be that it is divided. We see how artists are relied on in promoting Ireland abroad, promoting our reputation, generating tourism and being the centrepiece for cultural activity. Performing artists are doing huge work, far beyond any money that ever reaches them. The minimum should be that they get a fair and clear share from the money associated with their performances. We know that if we leave it to the Circuit Court, many artists are not going to take a case to resolve a situation such as this. There will not be an equality of arms in that kind of context. Amendments Nos. 2 and 5 set out effective, reasonable mechanisms that those who are the impetus behind this legislation, in that they have successfully argued the point at European level, are saying will work. It is independent. It allows for a controller who can see the pattern of cases rather than a haphazard situation because who knows who you might get in the Circuit Court. With the Controller of Intellectual Property, we have someone who can look at the patterns and at what is equitable and fair over a number of cases over a long period of time and can develop an expertise. What we have heard is that it is working everywhere else. I particularly welcome the point in amendment No. 2 to ensure that we do not have a slide in terms of what additional deductions may happen. We wold not see it being gradually chipped away. Rather, there would be a requirement for the costs to be justifiable and documented. That is another piece that could chip away at the 50:50. This is Committee Stage and Report Stage is coming. I ask the Minister of State to go back and really consider, particularly in relation to section 208, how this could be done better and how we could avoid the pitfalls. Instead of just doing the minimum, we could set up a mechanism that stands for the ages and would be recognised as part of a supportive infrastructure for the arts. In the past, Ireland marketed and promoted itself as supportive of the arts and should be continuing to do so. I would advise the Minister of State to listen to the artists on this and come back with something a little better on Report Stage. --- Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted. Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/seanad/2026-02-24/debate/main Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:54:41+00:00 Sitting date: 2026-02-24