I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The main purpose of the Bill, which is rather technical in character, is to bring our copyright law, regarding translations of literary works, into conformity with certain international conventions to which this State is a party. We passed an Act for that purpose last year, Section 8 of which was intended to deal with this matter, but that section has been found to be faulty and at variance with our obligations under a convention which we have ratified. The purpose of this Bill is to put that situation right.
This country has, since 1927, been a party to the International Convention which is generally known as the Berne Convention. The basic principles of the Berne Convention are that literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works generally are protected in each of the contracting States without formality, that is to say, without any such requirements as registration; they are protected for the duration of the author's life and for 50 years after his death; and works published in one country which is a party to the convention are protected in other contracting countries as if they were works published there.
Copyright in a literary work includes the right to authorise or not to authorise a translation of that work. The early versions of the Berne Convention permitted, however, an intrusion into the author's rights over translations. There was a provision that a contracting State could make a reservation to the convention, enabling it to authorise after ten years a translation of a copyright work published in another country of the union, into its own national language or languages unless in the meantime the author of the work had made or authorised a translation into that language.
When this country subscribed to the convention in 1927, we made such a reservation in respect of translations into the Irish language and the later revisions of the Berne Convention have provided that countries, with such reservations about translations, could maintain them. Section 10 of the 1929 Act, enacted to deal with this matter, provided that, in the case of a work first published in a country of the Berne Union, an author's exclusive right to translate it into the Irish language ceased after ten years, if he had not arranged for a translation to be published here within that time. This meant that after ten years, the author's work could be translated into Irish by anybody without obligation to make any payment to the author.
In 1952, there was another international convention on copyright, in Geneva, under the auspices of U.N.E.S.C.O. The countries concerned in that convention included many which are not members of the Berne Union. Of most importance to us was the fact that the United States of America participated and have now ratified the convention. Hitherto, copyright in works published in the English language could be obtained in the United States only by registration and printing there. Under this convention, which we propose to ratify, works of nationals of contracting countries and works first published in these countries can claim copyright in the United States. That is an important advance in reciprocal international copyright and is of potential advantage to authors and publishers in this country who may sell on the American market.
The reasons for having a separate convention, including the United States and other States, are that the United States retains a system of registration in their domestic legislation for their own authors, and the minimum term of copyright provided for between the contracting States of the Geneva Convention, which is the author's life and 25 years after his death, is less than the term applying amongst members of the Berne Convention.
The Geneva Convention also provides for a member State to place a limitation on authors' rights over translations. In this case, a contracting State can provide for the compulsory translation of a work into its national language or languages, after a period of seven years.
We find ourselves in difficulty by reason of the fact that there are two different codes to be incorporated in our domestic legislation. The particular problem that arose in that regard was the provision of power for the compulsory translation of foreign works into the Irish language. It is an arrangement that would be very difficult to administer and likely to cause much confusion and uncertainty for authors and translators.
We reviewed the necessity for having provisions in our law limiting the rights of foreign authors over translation of their works into the Irish language. The experience of the Department of Education during the period in which that section of the Act of 1929 has been in our law has been that no difficulty ever arose in coming to satisfactory arrangements with the owners of copyright for translation into Irish of works required for that purpose. The provisions of the Act were in fact never used and no necessity is seen for the continuance in our law of provisions for compulsory translation.
I am sure Deputies will agree that very strong reasons would have to be advanced to justify the curtailment of part of an author's right which, otherwise, our law and the laws of the countries subscribing to the Berne Convention recognise as having a duration of the author's life and 50 years after his death. Such reasons do not now exist, and this Bill will remove this curtailment. To meet any possible case of a translation having been made under the provisions of our existing law but not published before this Bill is enacted, a saver is being put in to permit the publication of such a translation without infringement of copyright within three years of the commencement of this Act.
The purpose of the Bill is to enable us to ratify the Geneva Convention and the latest version of the Berne Convention made in 1948, without recourse to reservations in the matter of translations. Ratification of these conventions is necessary to give our authors, artists and composers the widest possible measure of protection for their works throughout the world.
The Bill does not make any other substantial change in our copyright law. This law which dates from 1927 does, in my view, require substantial amendment but it is not proposed to undertake that now. The need for substantial amendment arises out of developments in connection with broadcasting, television and sound recording—developments which were not contemplated when the law was made. Because of the peculiarly international character of the things which are the subject matter of copyright, it is necessary for us to keep in line with international practice in this matter. As far as can be seen at present, it will be necessary for us to provide protection for broadcasting and television, to give protection to performers against the unauthorised filming or recording of their performances, and generally to overhaul and codify this law which is now spread over five Acts of the Oireachtas. It is a complicated subject. I think it will take some time before we are in a position to do it. In the meantime, the views of interested parties are being invited with a view to the preparation of proposals to submit to the Oireachtas.
There is in the present Bill at Section 3 a minor provision requiring an author's name to be mentioned when quotations from copyright works are given in reviews in newspapers and magazines, or where passages are included in anthologies for use in schools. This amendment is being made now because it is required by the terms of the Berne Convention.
Opportunity is also being taken in the present Bill to clarify a matter concerning the making of rules in relation to court proceedings regarding patents and trade marks. As the definitions in the Act stand, rules which can be made by the Minister could mean rules of court. The Superior Court Rules Committee have represented that it is undesirable that the Minister should have power to make rules of court, and the definitions in this respect are being altered, so that rules of court may now be made by that committee.
