Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 25 Nov 1964

Vol. 213 No. 2

Committee on Finance - Performers' Protection Bill, 1964— Second Stage.

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

An International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations was concluded at Rome in October, 1961. The Convention was drafted under the auspices of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, the International Labour Office and the Bureau of the International Union for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. It was open for signature until 30th June, 1962, by which date it was signed by 36 countries, including Ireland. In accordance with the provisions of Article 25 the Convention entered into force on 18th May, 1964, following ratification by six countries, one of which was Britain.

The requirements of the Convention, in so far as they relate to Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations, will be met by the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1963, which came into operation on 1st October, 1964. The Convention cannot be ratified until legislation is enacted to meet its requirements in relation to the protection of performers.

Article 4 of the Convention requires that national treatment shall be granted to performers whose performance takes place in another contracting State or is incorporated in a phonogram or a broadcast which would be the subject of protection under the Copyright Act. "National treatment" as defined in the Convention would be the treatment accorded by our domestic law to performers who are Irish nationals as regards performances taking place, broadcast, or first fixed on Irish territory. The Convention, at Article 7, sets out certain acts in relation to performances and requires that the protection to be given to performers shall include the possibility of preventing those acts. It is not proposed to create a property right in a performance, in the nature of a copyright, which a performer could enforce by civil action or which he might assign to any group such as a performers' union for enforcement. The proposals provide for protection of performers by making it a penal offence to do certain acts in relation to performances. It will, for instance, be an offence, punishable by fine on summary conviction, to make a record or a film of a performance, to sell or hire such a record or film or to use it for the purpose of giving a public performance without the consent of the performer. The necessary provisions are contained in sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Bill. These will meet the requirements of Article 7 of the Constitution.

Article 12 of the Convention provides that where commercial records are used for broadcasting purposes or for public performance, the user shall make a payment to the performers or the producers of the records or both. Under the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1963, payment is required to be made to the owners of copyright in records, that is to the recording companies, when their records are broadcast or used for public performance. It is understood that, under an agreement made between the recording companies and the various performers' unions, a percentage of the money which the companies receive for this use of their records is paid over to the performers' unions for the benefit of their members. The proposals in the Bill will not interfere with this arrangement.

It is also proposed to take powers to make an Order or Orders extending the protection of performers to records and films made in countries of the Convention, under circumstances which would be in contravention of the Act if they were made in the State.

The initiation of proceedings under the Act will be the responsibility of the person aggrieved.

I recommend the Bill for the approval of the House.

The Bill is designed to give to actors, singers, musicians, dancers and others who perform in public the same kind of protection against the piracy of their work as is given, as I understand it, to writers under the copyright legislation. The Bill will give to those people protection against the unauthorised use of their efforts by persons who make records or broadcasts of their performances and generally it will provide the protection which was given under the Copyright Act in respect of writing.

There are, however, one or two points about which I want to query the Minister. I notice from the Bill, and also from the concluding remarks of the Minister's speech, that the initiation of proceedings will be the responsibility of the person concerned. Does that mean that if a person contravenes this Bill, the State will not prosecute for an offence under it and the aggrieved person, in other words, must take proceedings himself? In that regard, is the proposed procedure the same here as in other countries which are parties to the Convention concluded at Rome in 1961?

In section 10, it is proposed to provide that, by order, the provisions of the Bill will be applied to the selling of records and the using of them for public performances where these have not been authorised in foreign countries which are a party to the Convention. I should like to inquire from the Minister why the unauthorised making of a record of the performance of foreign artists is not being made a contravention of the Bill. As I understand it, under subsection (1) of section 10, paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (1) of section 2 and paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (1) of section 3 do not apply in the case of foreign artists' performances.

The other point is in relation to the definition of a performance in section 1, the interpretation section. Does this definition exclude and, therefore, give no protection to a variety artist such as a comedian or to the producer or conductor of performances and, if so, why are they excluded?

The reply to the first question raised by Deputy Cosgrave about the initiation of proceedings is that the State may take action against a person who has a record of one of these performances illegally in his possession and there is provision for certain penalties.

That is in section 2?

Yes; and other sections provide for prosecution and fines on summary conviction. The Deputy also asked whether comedians, variety artists, etc., were covered by the definition section. They are covered.

When the Minister says the State may take action, do I understand from the Minister's remarks that the initiation of proceedings under the Act would be the responsibility of the person aggrieved?

If a person is aggrieved in a particular way; in other words, if somebody has illegally used certain records of his performances and he suffers damage as a result, he can initiate proceedings.

And the State at the same time might take action by prosecuting for an infringement of the Act?

I wish to ask the Minister two questions. In recent times the Performing Rights fees in respect of parish halls, restaurants and such places have been advanced to what appears to them to be an unreasonable amount. Would the Minister confirm that there is a board of appeal, whether in his Department or the Department of Justice, to which they can make an appeal to have them reduced or fixed at some equitable figure? Secondly, I should like to ask the Minister, because these people have an interest in this Bill, whether or not there were any consultations between his Department and the Irish Federation of Musicians.

The answer to the first question raised by Deputy Corish is that the fees charged by the Performing Rights Society do not come within the provisions of this Bill. They are covered by the Copyright Act passed earlier this year. People who feel aggrieved as a result of fees charged by the Performing Rights Society may, having examined their position in relation to the Copyright Act, avail of the procedure whereby they can bring certain matters governing these fees before the Controller of Industrial and Commercial Property.

Has the Controller power to reduce the fees? What happens when they appeal? Who makes the decision?

I understand it is the Controller.

Suppose the Performing Rights fees in a parish hall are increased from £8 to £24, and the trustees appeal, is it within the power of the Controller to say: "We think they should be £12", and can that decision stick?

The Copyright Bill was a fairly technical Bill——

I think it is the Minister's Department.

There is a connection between it and this?

The Minister is not briefed.

I am not briefed to answer questions in detail on a Bill not before the House.

Maybe a little consultation would clear it up.

Put down a question.

I spoke from memory of the passage of the Copyright Bill. My information is that the Controller has power to fix fair rates.

Good. I think that should be made known. I do not know whether the Minister can do it, but there have been big increases in recent times and I think the public ought to be made aware, especially people interested in parish halls, dance-halls, hotels, restaurants and so on, that they have a right of appeal. I asked also if the Minister had been in consultation with the Irish Federation of Musicians.

Yes, we have been, in connection with this Bill.

They suggested an amendment, which the Minister might accept.

I hope to accept the amendment and to introduce it on Committee Stage.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 9th December, 1964.
The Dáil adjourned at 8.55 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 2nd December, 1964.
Top
Share