Gabh mo leithscéal.
Sentiment score: 0.00
Gabh mo leithscéal, a Aire.
Sentiment score: 0.00
Tá sé in am anois an leasú seo a chur. Is féidir leis an Aire agus an Teachta Dála na fadhbanna atá acu a réiteach thar na gcéad píosaí eile. Tá cúpla uair a chloig againn istigh anseo.
Sentiment score: 0.00
Bogfaimid ar aghaidh go dtí leasú Uimh. 4, arising out of committee proceedings. Amendments Nos. 4 and 11 are related and will be discussed together.
Sentiment score: 0.00
Tá baint ag leasuithe Uimh. 5 agus 6 le chéile agus pléifear le chéile iad.
Sentiment score: 0.00
We are not in government so we are not breaking our promises.
Sentiment score: -0.29
We are not in government.
Sentiment score: 0.00
The Tánaiste is encouraging it.
Sentiment score: 0.53
Tairgim leasú Uimh. 25: In page 68, line 26, to delete “appropriate,”,” and substitute the following: “appropriate, (vii) a condition that the qualifying company shall, in respect of the qualifying film concerned, comply fully with the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 and the Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019, (viii) a condition that the qualifying company shall make every effort to ensure that performers, writers, composers, artists and other film workers resident within the jurisdiction will not be subject to lesser terms and conditions regarding the licencing or assignment of their intellectual property rights than persons resident outside the jurisdiction engaged in similar roles when employed on the same qualifying film, and (ix) a condition that the qualifying company shall not require performers, writers, composers, artists or other film workers to sign away their rights to future residual payments for their work on a qualifying film, or to agree to a so-called ‘buy-out’ contract, as a pre-condition of working on the qualifying film,”,”. Guím gach rath ar an Tánaiste ina phost nua. Tá súil agam go ndéanfaidh sé beart de réir a bhriathair. Níl mé chun dul sa mhéid a bhí an Teachta Doherty ag rá leis, ach tá jab mór roimhe agus tá súil agam go mbeidh tairbhe ann do phobal na hÉireann uilig. This amendment is very specific. It deals with the section 481 tax relief. We have what is no longer a fledgling film industry; it is there. The Minister, in particular, will be aware of the benefits of the film industry in his county. However, there have been quite a lot of issues from a worker's point of view as to whether we get the best benefit for our buck. Tax relief is tax forgone by the State, and that means we need to make sure we are getting the full benefit. This amendment does not deal with some of the practices that have undermined workers' rights, including their protective rights. The amendment deals specifically with the contracts workers are being forced to sign. They are being asked to sign away their rights and being encouraged to bypass the European directive and Irish law, otherwise they will not get the work that is front of them. The proposal is to change the conditionality that exists for the section 481 tax relief, that is, the certification that is required to be filled in and the additional conditionality included in that, which would mean that the companies that are trying to flaunt the law in Ireland by offering lesser conditions for workers in this field would not be able to continue to do so. I was not able to speak on this amendment when Paschal Donohoe was before the committee. In rejecting the amendment in committee, he outlined that he did "not believe it is appropriate for legal rights to be linked to only one set of circumstances where a company avails of a tax credit". It is extraordinary that the Government would oppose an attempt to ensure that a basic requirement, compliance with the law, should be a condition for receiving tax relief and that Irish workers should not face worse conditions on an Irish State-supported film than co-workers from abroad. The amendment I have set out would ensure that certificates required for the section 481 tax relief could only be issued to qualifying companies that do not treat Irish performers any worse than their peers from other jurisdictions doing the same work, to companies which comply with copyright legislation and to companies which do not engage in the practice of so-called buy-out contracts. Serious concerns have been raised by Irish Equity over contracts being drawn up by legal advisers at the request of certain producers which both agents and the artists are required to sign in order to get work with the excuse that particular clauses are required in the interests of legal certainty. These contracts appear to be worded in a manner that sets out to diminish the Copyright and Related Rights Act and the EU copyright directive. A performer cannot agree that a sum of money amounts to a proportionate remuneration without knowing what is proportionate in advance of revenue being earned. The aim of requiring such agreement is to protect any future claim and possibly also any contractual adjustments based on subsequent revenues, and this is contrary to Article 20 of the EU copyright directive. Building in buyouts as a norm for performers and creators undermines the directive. Transparency mechanisms should also be agreed to adapt the remuneration to subsequent revenues and trigger revision of the initial contract when revenues are disproportionately higher than the remuneration initially agreed. Terms of use must be defined in order for the assessment of the projected revenues to be properly made. There are more questionable clauses contained in those contracts that demand that artists sign away their rights for a period of ten years' unlimited use for a fixed amount. This is a buyout contract and will not provide any structure that will allow equitable or proportionate revenue share going to those artists for the ongoing exploitation of their production and their contribution. We have also been provided with a casting advice note for a television series which was being produced or is being produced here at present, a co-production in receipt of section 481 relief. The Irish producers are using the 2016 SPI Equity indigenous television agreement which, in fact, ran out in 2019 and as a result is no longer fit for purpose, nor is it compliant with current legislation. There is a wider issue of productions marketing themselves as Pact or Equity equivalent or claiming to be in line with the Equity rate without providing the appropriate contract. This is not the same as operating under an actual registered collective agreement such as the Pact-Equity agreement itself and that distinction matters. The casting advice note specifies that the contract would be for a ten-year worldwide licence. It states: ...the Company shall have the right to use Artist’s name, voice and likeness in connection with any merchandising relating to the Series and no royalties or other additional compensation shall be payable in connection therewith. It goes on to state that: No additional compensation if render services on a Related Production during the Dates of Engagement. If outside of Dates of Engagement, services shall be subject only to Artists prior professional commitments (notified to the Company in advance)(Artist shall use best endeavours to accommodate Company’s schedule). To maximise effectiveness of any Related Production (and, thus, the Series), Company is entitled to use extracts from the Series within any Related Production at no additional cost. I will continue in my second contribution.
Sentiment score: 0.19
On the last point, in some ways I agree with the Minister that laws cannot be disapplied but the problem is the frustration for people when the law is being ignored. The point Deputy Ó Murchú was making is that one of the problems is that to avail of section 481, companies are set up, which then disappear, so the Minister does not have recourse to chase after them after the fact. When artists try to start a process - and the courts move very slowly - at that stage the production is completed and the vehicle that was set up to avail of section 481 has disappeared. It is quite clear. Very few artists have the luxury of being able to challenge what is put in front of them. They are asked to sign away their rights, and I can quote contracts that artists have been asked to sign where they specifically state the artist acknowledges that the "fees payable herein constitute a complete buyout of all rights contemplated hereunder". That is a buyout and that is contrary to law, but artists are not going to be in a position if they want an income there and then or over the following couple of months to waive that because the contract I am referring to also states: "No artist can render on-camera services until the artist agreement has been signed by the artist". They are being held at ransom: "Sign this, or you will not work." That is not the type of industry we want. I will come back to another point, which shows that there can be discrimination between people employed in England to work in Ireland and people who are contracted directly here.
Sentiment score: -0.06
I hear the reluctance, which has been there all along, to add conditionality to section 481. There is an acknowledgement of changes in a flourishing industry. We need to make sure that while it flourishes the message goes out from here, from the Government and from Revenue that any attempts to mislead will not be tolerated in any shape or form. This applies to only one or two companies, but it seems to be a habit to try to bypass the EU copyright directive in any way or force artists to waive their hard won rights or to waive their rights to income because a lot of this concerns residuals. If a film is successful, money comes back from it being shown over and over again. Artists have residual rights to their own work. The EU directive sets out in black and white that performers have a right to equitable remuneration which cannot be waived. That is the intention of the amendment. The contracts I quoted very clearly demanded the waiving of those rights. At least this issue has been given a hearing. If it continues in the way it is going, we will be back to this again next year if there has been no movement. We will deal with this again if Equity and other representatives of performers are able to show us that artists are being asked to work under worse conditions than those employed on the same production in England and who have the rights that pertain in England rather than those which pertain here. That means they work under lesser conditions. I am glad we have had the debate and I welcome the commitments the Minister has given.
Sentiment score: 0.10