Ireland’s Attempt to Catch Up with EU Copyright Law

The European Union’s copyright framework is a labyrinthine construct that seeks to maintain a balance between fostering creativity and ensuring legal compliance across its member states.

It’s a system designed to protect the fruits of artistic labour while navigating the complexities of a digital age where music, film, and literature are consumed at the click of a button.

The recent Irish Dáil debate on the Copyright and Related Rights (Amendment) Bill 2025 offers a timely lens through which to examine the EU’s broader copyright landscape, with Ireland’s legislative adjustments reflecting both the challenges and aspirations of harmonising intellectual property laws.

The specifics of the Irish bill can also be usefully examined through comparisons with copyright regimes of Germany and France who both adopt distinct approaches in response to the tensions and difficulties of protecting creative rights in the modern technical context.

The bill itself, debated in the Dáil in June 2025, is Ireland’s attempt to rectify a delay in fully transposing the EU’s 2006 Copyright Directive (2006/115/EC).

As Minister of State Alan Dillon outlined in his opening remarks, the bill addresses a 2020 Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruling that found Ireland non-compliant with the directive, particularly in its handling of royalty payments between music producers and performers.

Dillon also highlighted the economic argument for the bill, noting that a “robust and well-functioning legal framework supporting copyright and intellectual property more broadly is, as already stated, essential for the economic well-being of the creative sector, which employs approximately 80,000 people.”

The CJEU’s judgment, stemming from a case brought by Recorded Artists, Actors and Performers (RAAP) and Phonographic Performance Ireland (PPI), highlighted Ireland’s failure to ensure equitable remuneration, a cornerstone of the directive, and to align with international treaties like the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) and the Rome Convention.

The bill introduces several key reforms. It establishes a default 50-50 royalty split between performers and producers; a standard already adopted by two-thirds of EU member states.

It also extends protections to nationals of non-EEA countries party to international copyright treaties and shifts dispute resolution from the Controller of the Intellectual Property Office to the Circuit Court.

This last change sparked heated debate, with TDs from the main opposition party decrying the move as a step toward costly, legalistic processes that could deter individual artists from seeking justice. An argument was put forward by the opposition to the effect that government’s decision to “shoehorn” disputes into the courts contradicts its broader policy of encouraging alternative dispute resolution, potentially clogging an already strained judicial system.

Some opposition members also pointed to a lack of consultation with stakeholders and the removal of licensing bodies’ roles in representing artists. There were warnings that this shift to individual litigation could disproportionately disadvantage performers, who often lack the financial resources to challenge wealthy record labels in court.

These concerns underscore a broader tension in copyright law: the need to protect artists without creating barriers to accessing their rights.

The bill’s supporters on the Government benches dismissed these concerns by outlining their belief that the Circuit Court’s involvement strengthens judicial oversight and aligns with the EU’s push for robust legal frameworks.

Germany, offers a contrasting model for copyright enforcement. Its copyright law, governed by the Urheberrechtsgesetz (Copyright Act), is rooted in the droit d’auteur tradition, which places the creator at the heart of intellectual property protection.

There is a strong argument that unlike Ireland’s reactive legislative tweaks, Germany has chosen to proactively adapt its copyright framework to address digital challenges, particularly through its implementation of the EU’s 2019 Copyright Directive (2019/790).

This directive introduced controversial provisions like Article 17 (requiring platforms to filter copyrighted content), was transposed into German law in 2021 with the Urheberrechts-Diensteanbieter-Gesetz (Copyright Service Providers Act).

Germany’s approach to equitable remuneration is particularly instructive. The country has a well-established system of collecting societies, such as GEMA for music and VG Wort for literature, which negotiate royalties on behalf of creators. These societies ensure that performers and authors receive a fair share of revenues from digital platforms, a model that Ireland’s bill partially emulates with its 50-50 default split. However, Germany’s system is more robust, with collective bargaining agreements that empower artists to negotiate terms with powerful entities like streaming services. Data from GEMA shows that in 2024, it distributed €1.2 billion to rights holders, a testament to the efficacy of collective action in securing equitable remuneration.

This contrasts with Ireland, with one opposition TD highlighting the alarming case of Meta using works by Irish Booker Prize winners without consent, thereby underscoring the need for a regulatory framework that keeps pace with technological advancements.

France also offers a model that prioritises performers’ rights through its droit d’auteur system. The French Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle provides a comprehensive framework for copyright, emphasising the unwaivable right to equitable remuneration.

In 2016, France implemented laws mandating that streaming platforms and digital distributors share revenues fairly with performers, a move that has bolstered the sustainability of its music industry. According to a 2023 report by the French collecting society SACEM, performers received €450 million in royalties from digital platforms, a 15% increase from 2020, reflecting the success of these measures.

The EU’s copyright framework is therefore perhaps inevitably a patchwork of directives aimed at harmonising laws across member states.

The 2006 Copyright Directive, at the heart of Ireland’s recent legislative overhaul, sought to ensure equitable remuneration for performers and producers, particularly in the context of rental and lending rights. The 2019 Copyright Directive built on this by addressing digital challenges, requiring platforms like YouTube to obtain licenses for copyrighted content and ensuring creators receive a fair share of revenues. Yet, as Ireland’s experience shows, transposition of these directives is uneven, with member states like Germany and France setting a higher standard than smaller nations struggling to keep pace.

The rise of AI and digital platforms adds further complexity.

As noted during the Dáil debate, the unauthorised use of creative works to train AI models poses an existential threat to artists.

The EU’s AI Act, expected to be fully implemented by 2026, aims to address this by requiring transparency in AI training data, but enforcement will almost certainly remain a challenge.

Ireland’s Copyright and Related Rights (Amendment) Bill 2025 is a step toward aligning Ireland with EU and international copyright standards, but it also reveals the difficulties of balancing legal compliance with practical accessibility.

Germany and France offer models of success, with robust collecting societies and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms that empower artists without burdening them with costly litigation. Ireland’s move to the Circuit Court, while intended to strengthen judicial oversight, runs the risks of alienating the very creatives it aims to protect.

As the EU navigates the digital age, copyright law must evolve to address new threats like AI-driven infringement while ensuring that artists, whether in Dublin, Berlin, or Paris, receive fair compensation for their work.

However, the Irish debate, with its focus on equitable remuneration and access to justice, reflects the broader struggle to uphold the value of creativity in a world where technology often outpaces regulation.

It also highlights how challenging it can b to protect individual creators from exploitation, while fostering an environment where innovation thrives.

The EU’s and Ireland’s copyright framework, imperfect though they may be, are constructive steps to achieve this balance.

As always, these efforts and the ongoing need for refinement demand vigilance, collaboration, and a commitment to fairness if they are to succeed.