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. 6:
In page 4, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:
“(d) by the insertion of a new subsection (11):
“(11) The calculation of equitable remuneration due to each individual performer shall be carried out in accordance with subsection (4) by a licensing body for performers’ rights registered under section 280 in respect of a scheme that includes management of the right to equitable remuneration. Where there is more than one such licensing body and in default of agreement as to which licensing body should undertake the calculation, any such licensing body may apply to the Controller for an order determining the question. In making this determination, the Controller shall take all relevant matters into account including in particular:
(a) the relative capacity of each licensing body to discharge this function accurately and efficiently;
(b) the scope and extent of rightsowner mandates held by each licensing body;
(c) the scope and extent of the data available to each licensing body in respect of the performers making or contributing to the performances in respect of which equitable remuneration is payable;
(d) protections under Data Protection legislation with respect to the data referred to in subsection (c);
(e) rights in the database or databases in which the data referred to in subsection (c) are comprised; and
(f) any matter relevant to each licensing body’s compliance with the provisions of the European Union (Collective Rights Management) (Directive 2014/26/EU) Regulations.”.”.
Amendment No. 6 proposes a new subsection to section 208 to enable performer CMOs to manage the calculation of performers' dues in an orderly way if more than one performer CMO is operating in the State. It is a process that, of necessity, must be carried out by a performer CMO with the necessary information and ability to do so.
Amendment No. 8 amends section 280 to provide for extended collective licensing for performer CMOs and to bring an end to extended representation of unrepresented performers by producers’ CMOs in breach of the DSM directive. The proposed amendment to section 280 gives effect to EU law on extended representation and would bring an end to the unlawful extended representation currently arising under the Act. A small additional amendment, No. 9, proposes to change section 281 in consequence of this proposal, if accepted.
In brief, before the passing of the DSM directive, EU law was agnostic on whether member states made provision for mandatory or extended representation rights for CMOs. It permitted but did not mandate the administration of rights of unrepresented rights holders to protect their interests pending the appointment of a CMO or a decision to self-represent. It ensured everyone was represented or allowed to self-represent if they wished. The collective rights management directive prescribed the nature and effects of the authorisation to be obtained from rights holders by the CMOs in circumstances where national law did not provide for mandatory, extended or presumptive authorisation. The regulations implementing the CRM directive gave effect to those provisions. However, the directive left it open to member states to make provision for mandatory, extended or presumptive authorisation of representation by operation of law.
A detailed explanation of the law in this regard is set out by Ms Justice Costello in her judgment for the Court of Appeal in Recorded Artists Actors Performers Limited v. Phonographic Performance (Ireland) Limited in 2023. In the hearing of certain preliminary legal issues only, the judge rejected RAAP’s argument in that case to the effect that section 281 of the Act provided for a presumptive right to act on behalf of unrepresented performers. She said "if the legislature had intended to impose upon those performers representation which they had not sought nor consented to, one would expect this to have been clearly stated”.
RAAP has now specifically asked that this amendment be made to ensure such a facility is clearly stated, not only on the basis that it is necessary to make the Article 8(2) right to equitable remuneration effective for performers as I have outlined, but also to bring an end to the contravention of the directive which arises under the current provisions of the Act and the absence of extended collective representation for performers.
In that regard, the DSM directive represents a move from an agnostic position of EU legislation regarding extended licensing of intellectual property rights and refers to the usefulness, and sometimes necessity, of such provision. The focus of the DSM directive is the digital environment but the provisions for extended collective licensing are general in nature. We refer the Department to recitals 44 to 50 of the DSM directive. In recital 44, reference is made to collective licensing involving legal mandates or presumptions of representation as "a well-established practice in several Member States". As outlined in RAAP's July memorandum to the Department, such arrangements exist in at least 20 member states of the EU. Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czechia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and Spain all provide for mandatory collective management of this right, while Finland and Slovakia make use of a government-appointed entity to manage the rights. Recital 45 of the DSM directive reads:
Extended collective licensing by collective management organisations and similar mechanisms can make it possible to conclude agreements in those areas where collective licensing based on an authorisation by rightholders does not provide an exhaustive solution for covering all works or other subject matter to be used. Such mechanisms complement collective management of rights based on individual authorisation by rightholders, by providing full legal certainty to users in certain cases. At the same time, they provide an opportunity to rightholders to benefit from the legitimate use of their works.
Collective licensing based on authorisation by rights-holders does not provide an exhaustive solution for covering the rights of all performers to equitable remuneration for the reasons outlined in my introduction to these amendments. Article 12 of the DSM directive makes provision for member states to provide for extended collective representation. It does so conditional on the following safeguards: that the CMO is sufficiently representative, on the basis of its mandates, for the rights under management; rights-holders are guaranteed equal treatment under the scheme; rights-holders who have not given explicit authorisation may quickly and easily opt out of collective management; and effective publicity efforts are undertaken by the CMO to inform rights-holders of their rights, the default administration of them and their right to opt out of the scheme. As the Act is currently structured, a producers' CMO is put in control of the collection of licence fees to be shared with performers, not all of whom will be represented.

---

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