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. 10:
In page 5, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:
“Amendment of section 288 of Principal Act
5. Section 288 of the Principal Act is amended by the insertion of “, or, it is incorporated in a sound recording which qualifies for copyright protection under Part II of this Act” after “this Chapter”.”.
This discrete additional amendment to section 281 is to address the way the Bill, as proposed, is not yet compliant with EU law on the shared right to equitable remuneration under Article 8(2) of Directive No. 2006/115 as declared by the court in RAAP v. PPI and Ireland. As stated in the case, Article 8(2) of the directive, which provides for the right to equitable remuneration, must be interpreted consistently with the provisions of the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, WPPT, to which the EU is a party, and which, under Article 216 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, TFEU, has primacy over secondary legislation, such as directives.
The court went on to construe that the provisions of the WPPT in light of the directive falls to be interpreted. It held that the qualification criteria for the right provided in the WPPT are imported from the Rome Convention, which in turn provides for the right to attach to all performances incorporated on a sound recording that is protected by copyright in a contracting state. Irrespective of the place of residence or domicile of the performer or the place where the performance takes place therefore, a performance attracts a right to equitable remuneration for the performer who gave it, once it is incorporated on a protected sound recording. Accordingly, the connecting factor for qualification of performers for the right to equitable remuneration is the incorporation of the performance in question in a qualifying sound recording.
An amendment giving effect to this criterion of qualification for the right of performers to equitable remuneration is not only required to implement Article 8(2), when it is properly construed in light of the WPPT, but it is the only way in which the Bill can be brought into compliance with the court's second basis for finding the current qualification provisions are inconsistent with the requirements of the directive. That second basis is that the fundamental characteristic of Article 8(2) is that it is a shared right, which does not admit of being enjoyed, in any circumstances, only by phonogram producers.
The change proposed to section 288, if made, would achieve a common basis for qualification for both sets of rights, namely, qualification of the sound recording for copyright protection as required by EU law. Apart from bringing the section into complete compliance with the law as it has been declared by the CJEU to be, bringing the qualification for the right into complete alignment as between performers and producers would obviate any concern that might otherwise remain on the producer side that they need to police performer qualification for the right. That in turn would militate towards a right, more simplified and more efficient process.
At the end of the day, we are trying to ensure that in recordings and performance, both sides get what is due to them in a 50-50 split in total and that there is no deviation from that. It is a recognition that exercising the right to remuneration sometimes has to be qualified, protected and clearly stated in law, so there is no attempt by anybody to enrich themselves and bypass the order of things. We have already seen that both performers and producers have been under severe strain in recent years because of the change in the way people listen to their music and the way copyright has been flouted around the world on media channels.
In some ways, this is the clear-up. It is a way to ensure there is a stream of funding for those who are the artists and creatives and are ensuring we can enjoy different music, sounds and expressions. It is also a recognition that those who produce the music also have rights. It is not just one side. I might have come across as reflecting the rights on one side, but the rights of performers are usually the ones that are eroded. They are usually the ones who suffer in the relationships where the greater portion of what is due to them seems to go missing or is reallocated elsewhere rather than being a straight 50-50 split, as it should be.
The intention of all ten amendments is to clarify in law. It is a pity that the Minister of State, thus far, has not been willing to take them on board. I hope she will reconsider and take at least this one amendment. It would send a useful message in itself that would address some of the concerns that are out there.

---

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