For the convenience of Senators I have circulated a list setting out: (1) amendment No. 1 made by the Seanad; (2) the amendment made by the Dáil in lieu of that amendment; (3) a Motion in the name of the Leader of the House. Discussion will take place on the Motion in the name of the Leader of the House and may I remind Senators that Senators may speak only once on the Motion. I now call on the Deputy Leader of the House.
Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 1984: Message from Dáil.
Dáil Éireann has agreed to amendments Nos. 2 to 6 inclusive made by Seanad Éireann to the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 1984. In lieu of amendment No. 1, it has made the following amendment:——
In page 2, before section 1, to insert the following new section:
1.—Section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1963, is hereby amended by the insertion after subsection (7) of the following subsection:
"(7A) The act of reproducing an object of any description which is in three dimensions shall not be taken to constitute an infringement of the copyright in an artistic work in two dimensions (other than such a work relating to a work of architecture) if——
(a) any of the features following, that is to say, shape, configuration and pattern, that appear in the work and are applied to the object are wholly or substantially functional, and
(b) the object is one of a number, in excess of fifty, of identical objects which have been manufactured and made commercially available by the owner of the copyright or by a person authorised by him in that behalf."
to which the agreement of Seanad Éireann is required.
I move:
"That the Seanad do not insist on amendment No. 1 made by it to the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 1984 and agrees to the amendment in lieu thereof made by Dáil Eireann to the Bill."
I would be interested in getting some explanation as to why this change is made. I have no objection in principle whatsoever. I would just like, if it is possible at this stage, to get some explanation.
The opening phrase of the Seanad amendment commences with the words: "The making of an object of any description which is in three dimensions..." In contrast, the amendment moved by the Minister in the Dáil opens with the phrase "The act of reproducing an object of any description which is in three dimensions ..." I should say that it was the Attorney General who advised on the revised wording which is more legally and technically correct. The advice was that the expression "reproducing ..." was the correct one to use in circumstances where a third party makes functional objects by copying an object originally made by the copyright owner. This is the only significant change in the wording of the Minister's amendment and no change in substance from Seanad amendment No. 1 is involved. I should also say that subparagraph (b) of the Minister's amendment contains slightly different wording from the corresponding subparagraph of the Seanad amendment. Again there is absolutely no difference in substance, but the revised wording was prepared by the Attorney General on the basis that legally and technically it more correctly expresses the objective to be achieved. I hope this will satisfy anybody who might be worried about it because what we are talking about is reproducing rather than the making of an object. Our legal opinion, as advised by the Attorney General, is that reproducing is the more appropriate term. That is the only amendment we have made to the Seanad amendment.
The Minister of State has made all the problems very clear and we have no difficulty in accepting that.
Question put and agreed to.