Subscribe
On 8 July 2025, the Irish Parliament’s Joint Committee on Artificial Intelligence convened a discussion with Ireland’s first Minister of State for Artificial Intelligence, Niamh Smyth, to explore the country’s first AI strategy, AI: Here for Good, and its alignment with the EU Artificial Intelligence Act.
The latter purports to adopt a risk-based framework to regulate AI, prohibiting practices like social scoring and mandating protections against discrimination while Ireland’s implementation, which is set to be fully operational by August 2026, adopts what has been termed a distributed model, with eight competent authorities, including the Data Protection Commission and the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, tasked with enforcing compliance, particularly concerning fundamental rights.
While the Joint Committee debate, intended as a “state-of-the-nation overview” touched on several critical issues ranging from economic competitiveness to societal transformation, one topic emerged as particularly contentious: the use of AI in creative industries and its implications for intellectual property (IP) rights.
This issue, raised pointedly by Social Democrat Deputy Sinéad Gibney and echoed by Deputy Paul Murphy, not only reflected a growing tension between fostering innovation and safeguarding the rights of artists and creators, but it also revealed a fault line in Ireland’s AI strategy that could have profound human rights implications.
Deputy Sinéad Gibney zeroed in on the use of AI in marketing and art, questioning how Ireland’s strategy addresses the potential theft of intellectual property.
She noted that AI systems, particularly generative models, often rely on datasets that include copyrighted material scraped from the internet without creators’ consent. This practice, she argued, risks exploiting artists and undermining their economic and creative rights.
Deputy Paul Murphy amplified this concern, citing a recent case involving Conor Kostick, a member of the Irish Writers Union, who discovered that 52 of his works, including 24 books, had been used without permission to train Meta’s AI models.
Murphy asked whether such models should be allowed to operate outside standard copyright frameworks, to which Minister Smyth responded unequivocally, “No.”
This exchange however crystallised a critical human rights issue: the right to control one’s creative output as intellectual property is not merely an economic asset but a cornerstone of personal autonomy and free expression.
Indeed, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 27, recognizes the right of everyone to “the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production.”
By allowing AI systems to exploit copyrighted material, Ireland risks violating this principle, potentially stifling artistic freedom and economic livelihoods.
As part of her response to these concerns Minister Smyth acknowledged the importance of IP protection, pointing to provisions in the EU AI Act that, from August 2025, will require technology providers to comply with copyright laws and disclose training data to regulators upon request. She also confirmed that by August 2026, further obligations will ensure AI-generated content is identifiable in machine-readable formats, enhancing transparency.
However, when pressed by Gibney on whether Ireland would consider domestic legislation to address gaps in the EU AI Act, particularly regarding art theft, Smyth admitted it was “too early to say” but expressed openness to the idea.
This response, while pragmatic, left some committee members concerned about an imbalance in Ireland’s approach, which appears to prioritise business innovation over robust protections for creators.
This lack of concrete commitments to address IP theft is particularly striking given Ireland’s cultural heritage especially when one considers the enormous efforts have been made to promote literary giants like Joyce and Heaney, as key ambassadors of Ireland’s creative sector.
Yet, the AI: Here for Good strategy, as noted by committee members emphasises business support, with little mention of safeguards for artists.
The strategy’s claim that the EU AI Act imposes “few, or no, obligations” on businesses using AI for productivity thereby raises concerns that creative industries may be left vulnerable to exploitation by tech giants.
The broader implications are obvious given that the IP debate generally is not just about copyright; it intersects with free speech and economic equity.
Artists rely on their work for both expression and livelihood. If AI systems can freely harvest their creations, it risks devaluing their labour and silencing their voices, as they may lack the resources to compete with AI-generated content flooding the market.
This dynamic also touches on free speech because if tech companies dominate AI-driven content creation, they could shape narratives and aesthetics in ways that prioritise commercial interests over diverse voices.
The committee’s discussion on the proposed regulatory sandbox, intended to provide startups with legal guidance and a testing environment, was also a focal point of the debate.
While Minister Smyth framed it as a tool to foster innovation within legal boundaries, Gibney questioned how it would handle risks associated with live personal data, a concern tied to privacy rights.
Minister Smyth’s openness to domestic legislation to rectify these gaps is a positive signal, but concrete action is needed to reassure artists and protect their rights.
One potential solution is to strengthen copyright enforcement within Ireland’s AI framework. This could involve mandating explicit consent for training data, requiring compensation for creators whose work is used, and establishing a transparent audit trail for AI models.
Additionally, Ireland could leverage its EU Presidency in 2026 to advocate for stricter IP protections at the European level, positioning itself as a champion of both innovation and human rights.
Public awareness and education, as emphasised by a number of committee members are also crucial. By integrating AI literacy into schools and community programs, Ireland can empower citizens to navigate the digital landscape and advocate for their rights.
The planned AI literacy campaign for older adults, targeting 60,000 individuals, is a step in the right direction, but broader efforts are needed to bridge the digital divide.
Ultimately, the Joint Committee’s debate on 8 July 2025 revealed Ireland’s ambitious vision for AI but also exposed a critical blind spot: the protection of intellectual property as a human right.
The concerns raised by Deputies Gibney and Murphy highlight the need for a more balanced approach that safeguards creators while fostering innovation.
As Ireland prepares to implement the EU AI Act and establish its national AI office, it must ensure that its strategy does not prioritise economic gains at the expense of artistic freedom and economic equity.
Failure to address these issues risks undermining public trust and perpetuating inequalities, challenging Ireland’s claim to ethical AI leadership. The path forward requires bold action, both legislative and cultural, to ensure AI serves the common good, as Minister Smyth’s strategy promises.
The debate also touched on the question of enforcement capacity. Several deputies raised concerns that Ireland’s distributed regulatory model may dilute accountability, as eight competent authorities are tasked with oversight but no single body carries ultimate responsibility. Critics warned that such fragmentation risks inconsistent application of the law and could leave loopholes exploitable by larger technology companies with the resources to navigate complex oversight structures. This worry is heightened by Ireland’s track record with data protection enforcement, where critics have accused the Data Protection Commission of moving too slowly against multinational firms headquartered in Dublin.
Another issue left unresolved is funding. The AI: Here for Good strategy commits Ireland to ambitious objectives, from research incentives to literacy campaigns, but without clarity on sustained financial support. Committee members questioned whether regulators, universities, and creative industries would receive adequate resources to ensure genuine balance between innovation and rights protection. Without meaningful investment, the strategy risks becoming a largely symbolic document rather than a practical framework.
In this respect, the debate exposed a fundamental tension: whether Ireland will leverage AI to reinforce its economic position as a European tech hub or recalibrate its model to also defend its cultural and human rights obligations.