Copyright and Related Rights (Amendment) Bill 2025: Report and Final Stages
Dail Éireann — 2026-01-21
============================================================

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (SF), Dublin South-Central

I move amendment No. 3:
In page 3, to delete lines 16 to 32, and in page 4, to delete lines 1 to 14 and substitute the
following:
“(a) by the substitution of the following subsections for subsections (4), (5) and (6):
“(4) Subject to subsections (5) to (9), and unless otherwise agreed by or on behalf of the persons by and to whom it is payable the amount of equitable remuneration payable under this section to the performers on a sound recording is equal 50 per cent share of the payments referred to in subsection (1), which shall be referred to in this Part as the Statutory Share.
(5) The person by or to whom it equitable remuneration is payable may apply to the Controller for an order under subsection (8) to vary the Statutory Share. Where there are numerous persons having the same interest in the subject matter of any such application, one or more of such persons may apply to the Controller under this subsection on behalf of all persons so interested. Representation by the same licensing body for the same rights shall be taken as proof of persons having the same interest in the subject matter of the application for the purposes of this section. A licensing body which represents persons making an application under this section may also be a party to an application made by any person or persons whom it represents.
(6) Subject to subsection (7), a person or persons by or to whom equitable remuneration is payable having the right to apply to the Controller under subsection (5) may also apply to the Controller—
(a) to vary any agreement as to the amount payable, or
(b) to vary any previous determination of the Controller as to the amount payable.”,”.
Amendment No. 3 seeks to delete paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 2 as proposed in the Bill, which intends to replace subsections (4) to (9) of section 208 in the Act and to insert new subsections (3A) to (3E), doing away with the right to recourse to the Controller of Intellectual Property. Amendment No. 7 deletes section 3, which also transfers the controller functions to the Circuit Court. While the Minister of State's amendments Nos. 4 and 5, which she will move herself, will bring clarity as to how the Circuit Court will deal with subsequent requests to change as an order under the proposed new system, we ask that the Minister of State reconsider entirely the transfer of functions from the Controller of Intellectual Property.
The Association of European Performers' Organisations, AEPO-ARTIS, made it very clear in its submission to the Minister of State that transferring this function to the Circuit Court, thus necessitating costly litigation, is tantamount to depriving performers of any redress or dispute resolution mechanism. It also pointed out that it was a fundamental principle of EU law that rights must be effective in practice. The European Commission has explicitly stated that legislative wording that does not achieve its objective is not only not fit for purpose, but is not compliant with EU law. In other words, as RAAP has outlined, if the Government passes legislation that ticks the box with the legal provisions but is of no practical help to the artist seeking to get their royalties, then it has not achieved compliance with the EU directive. At the end of the day, this is about ensuring full compliance but also ensuring that artists and producers get their equitable share and that the artists and performers get their royalties.
Therefore, once again, we ask the Minister of State to delete these sections. Instead, we propose to retain and amend the existing subsections. The change proposed to subsection (4) is intended to adjust and augment what was intended to be provided for in section 3A of this Bill. Insofar as the right to a particular percentage share is to be provided for, it must be provided for, as between the performers on a sound recording and the producer as distinct from "a performer", where there may be several performances comprised on the sound recording. In other jurisdictions, a statutory or prescribed split is typically made, subject to an alternative agreement between the interested parties, and we have made provisions for that in the amendments. This is distinguishable from an ability to set aside the statutory share on the basis of one of the beneficiaries being unhappy with it - that is currently provided for in section 3B of the Bill — which would set at naught the protection entailed in the provision for a statutory share.
The amendment to subsection (5) would replace section 3B of the Bill and enables an application for dispute resolution. Such an application would require the applicant to set forth evidence to establish the case and would not provide a mechanism to otherwise seek to avoid the application of the statutory share or other agreement between the parties.
The amendment would also retain application to the controller as the dispute resolution mechanism for such disputes on the basis set out in the following paragraphs. Insofar as a dispute arises in respect of the methodology and payment of performers, and indeed in respect of any other dispute arising under section 208, this is suitable for expert assessment or arbitration - that is a point that was made in the committee - both of which can be appointed by the controller. Sections 365 and 367 of the Act allow for that.
Insofar therefore as there was a concern in the Department that the Intellectual Property Office of Ireland lacked capacity to determine such disputes, that concern is unfounded. That is no more the case than in the Circuit Court, which in the future will have to rely on bringing in outside expertise because there will not be the expertise sitting around waiting on these cases. The Intellectual Property Office can ensure that expert assessments would be got for the arbitration of cases. Why get rid of something that has worked - or rather it has not worked because there have not been cases before it? I think there was one case. Why end a system that works or at least can work to effect the EU directive?
Our understanding of the difficulty that the controller experienced in receiving applications for dispute resolution from RAAP was not a lack of capacity to determine them, but the extent to which issues affecting the legal basis for determination of the dispute was still pending before the High Court in the actions taken by RAAP against PPI.
lf a role in resolving licensing disputes concerning the right to equitable remuneration was now given to the Circuit Court, it would be the only role allocated to the Circuit Court by the Act. I find it strange that we are trying to burden the Circuit Court with additional work. The threshold in the Circuit Court in most regards is for cases over €15,000. It ensures that anybody going to the Circuit Court will require a solicitor and in most cases a barrister also, which adds to the costs. I still believe the Minister of State should take the opportunity to withdraw this change and revert to the role of the controller. She should ensure it is enhanced rather than taking away from it.

---

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/dail/2026-01-21/debate/main
Retrieved: 2026-08-31T01:00:51+00:00
Sitting date: 2026-01-21