2026-07-14

I move: That Dáil Éireann: recognises that art is the product of the labour of artists, informed by their unique human experience, creativity and skill reiterates Article 27.2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that "Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author"; affirms that the constitutional property rights of our writers, composers, performers, actors, and artists include the intellectual property of their works and performances, the royalties from which form an integral part of the income they earn from their labour; notes with concern that the social impacts of low pay, precarious work and poor working conditions have been identified as endemic to the arts sector in Ireland since the late 1990s, according to research commissioned by the Arts Council of Ireland, and demonstrated in research conducted as part of the pilot basic income for artist’s scheme; and commends the work of the Irish Music Rights Organisation, the Screen Composers Guild of Ireland, The Ivors Academy, the Irish Recorded Music Association, the Irish Writers Union, Irish Equity, Recorded Artists Actors Performers, the Digital Creative Industries Forum, the Association of European Performers' Organisations (AEPO-ARTIS), the European Composer and Songwriter Alliance, the International Federation of Actors, among other organisations, and of individual artists for defending the rights of Irish artists, authors, creators and performers against exploitation and misuse, and for highlighting the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) developments on rights holders; expresses alarm that: - the use of generative AI systems that rely massively on protected content not only reproduce work without authorisation from, or remuneration for, the rights holders affected by such use, but may also result in the provision of products and services that directly and unfairly compete with those of the rights holders; - generative AI systems, by massively and inexpensively creating content that mimics what was produced by human creativity, competes directly with the work of creators, particularly of cultural and media content, and that this competition may lead to a decline in the quality of online content as a result of creators disengaging, and thus to an overall decline in human cultural and creative production; - a study on the economic impact of Generative AI in the Music and Audiovisual industries by the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC) in 2024 found that AI would put 24 per cent of music creators' revenues at risk by 2028, a cumulative loss of €10 billion over the next five years; and - generative AI systems are used to massively generate outputs used to commit streaming fraud, with music streaming service Deezer finding in April 2026 that up to 85 per cent of the streams generated by fully AI-generated tracks in 2025 were fraudulent, and that 75,000 fully AI-generated tracks are uploaded to Deezer every day, representing roughly 44 per cent of total daily uploads; notes that a majority of European Union (EU) member states responding to a consultation by the Danish Presidency of the Council of the EU into lessons learned on Article 15 of the Directive of the Digital Single Market Copyright (DSMC) Directive and on fostering a well-functioning framework for licensing in the age of AI called for immediate action to increase transparency and facilitate licensing; criticises the European Commission for withdrawing the proposed AI Liability Directive, which would have established a new civil liability regime for AI including disclosure obligations and a rebuttable presumption of causal link between such systems and harms; notes with concern that: - the implementation of the copyright-relevant obligations of the AI Act, through the Code of Practice for General-Purpose AI providers and the template for the transparency summary, has not led to effective solutions for rights holders to enforce their rights and is thus insufficient; - the opt-out mechanism under Article 4 of the DSMC Directive has not delivered meaningful control for rights holders in practice; and - the extension of the text and data mining exemption under Article 4 of the DSMC Directive to AI training has in effect authorised the mass ingestion of protected content to build commercial systems that directly compete with, and in many cases displace, the very creators whose work made those systems possible; supports the creation of collective licensing models, ensuring robust opt-out mechanisms, fair remuneration to authors and performers, and transparency for creators as recommended by the Government's AI Advisory Council in its advice paper on The Impact of AI on Ireland's Creative Sector; supports, in particular, the recommendations adopted by the European Parliament in its resolution of 10th March, 2026 on the opportunities and challenges relating to copyright and generative AI as they relate to the rights of artists, including: - that the current copyright law is insufficient to address the challenge of licensing copyrighted material for generative AI and an additional legal framework is needed; - those who use generative AI models and systems and do not observe copyright, should be barred from the market; - a framework is needed for transparency and source documentation on the use of copyright-protected work or other protected subject matter, including for opt-out compliance; - a coherent and functioning licensing framework must be established in respect of the use of content protected by copyright or related rights, to enable the fair remuneration of creators for the exploitation of their copyright-protected content by generative AI models; - a rebuttable presumption should be established that, for any generative AI model or system placed on the EU market, works and other subject matter protected by copyright or related rights have been used for the purposes of training, inferencing or Retrieval-augmented generation, where transparency obligations have not been fully complied with; and - content fully generated by AI that does not meet the established criteria for copyright protection should remain ineligible for copyright protection; and calls on the Government to: - use the opportunity of our Presidency of the Council of the EU to draw attention to and lead efforts to resolve these issues, including through the organisation of a dedicated conference focused on protecting the copyright of artists in the context of generative AI; - introduce legislation domestically, while also seeking agreement at EU and international level, to establish the appropriate framework for licensing, transparency, fair remuneration, anti-impersonation personality rights, collective bargaining, civil liability and opt-outs required to protect the copyright of Irish artists in the context of generative AI; and - ensure that no State funding for art is spent on content production by AI, and that the livelihoods of human Irish artists continue to be supported; and includes representation for the arts sector on the AI Advisory Council, and that the AI Office of Ireland and other mechanisms for developing policy recognise creative industries and copyright as areas of special interest and ensure creative industry representation. CMAT, Kneecap, Colm Tóibín, Sally Rooney and even my name are all names you will find on The Atlantic's AI Watchdog website, whose writings and songs have been pilfered for artificial intelligence, and there are many millions more. It is an interesting website people should look at to see the names of local artists, writers, poets and others who pop up there and to see the scale of the pilfering and robbery of their creative talents. Agus mé ag cur fáilte roimh na healaíontóirí agus na heagrais ealaíon atá san Áiléar don díospóireacht seo inniu, glacfaidh mé nath ar iasacht ó bhuaiteoir an duais Ivor Novello, Iain Archer, a dúirt nach féidir an abhainn a choimeád siar i dtaca le hintleacht shaorga. There is no holding back the river when it comes to artificial intelligence. AI is already here and is flooding the world with text, songs and videos on an unprecedented scale; some call it AI slop. The question is how we deal with this flood to ensure our artists do not sink beneath the waves of the scale of the AI flood. That is the premise of the motion before the Dáil today, which calls on Ireland to lead the world as we did before in the arts. Copyright was invented in Ireland and is the arc on which we can save our artists from the flood. When Colmcille copied a book lent to him by Finnian, a bloody battle ensued. Thousands died and Colmcille was forced into exile when a famous judgment of the Rí, Diarmait mac Cerbaill, said, "Is le gach bó a lao, agus is le gach leabhar a chóip", to every cow its calf, to every book its copy. A millennium and a half later, with Ireland serving as the President of the Council of the European Union, it is the same law we want to see enforced in the era of AI. In the words of the author Scott Turow, in paraphrasing The Atlantic's Alex Reisner, the bold future promised by AI has been "created with stolen words". We are living through the greatest art heist in history. The entire corpus of global achievement in writing, music, film and the visual arts is up for grabs and is being used and abused for corporate greed. Whole books and poems are being garbled up and plagiarised in output presented as original work. Vocals are being stripped from recordings and backing tracks sold without permission. Entire singles generated without humans attached, and not even labelled as AI, amount to 44% of uploads of music on the streamer Deezer. Spotify has even had to remove 75 million tracks in the recent past, such was the volume of AI slop tracks that had been uploaded. Whole personas, voices, faces, identities and styles have been cloned without consent, and Bollywood has seen a tragic film re-release with an AI happy ending, with neither the director nor lead actor being consulted; there was not a penny for the original creators, performers or artists. Worse still, human artists now need to compete with this AI-generated work to make a living. Profit moguls push the private sector to cut the cost of human work in favour of AI slop. The public sector is also guilty, opening up the opportunities humans once relied on to so-called AI innovation. An Post released an AI-designed stamp and Údarás na Gaeltachta held an AI film competition. Theft is being rewarded and creativity is being punished to the tune of €22 billion globally in music and film, according to the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers. The European directives are no longer fit for purpose because of the exemptions granted to train AI. This is not simply Sinn Féin's view but also the view adopted by the European Parliament in March, as well as most member states during the Danish EU Presidency. Abandoning Commission proposals to reform the civil liability regime for AI could have helped artists and others besides. We must lead the charge for action at European level now but there are things we can do here at home. We need representation for the arts sector in every AI policymaking body, and we need no State funding for our art and content produced by AI. The livelihoods of human and Irish artists need to continue to be supported. Domestic legislation needs to be established for an appropriate framework for the licence transparency, fair renumeration, personality rights to guard against impersonation, collective bargaining and civil liability on upsales and much more.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion on protecting the copyright of Irish artists in the era of artificial intelligence. It is important to note this is a nuanced and targeted motion to protect Irish artists across the entire spectrum of the arts. It is not an attack on AI as a whole, which we know has its uses where appropriate. The AI systems and databases are hungry beasts that have to be continuously fed huge amounts to learn. Unfortunately, they have been fed the copywritten works and intellectual property of artists around the world, including Irish artists. Irish artists and writers have given their labour, blood, sweat, tears and dreams to creating something uniquely human - songs, stories, music and paintings that mean so much to many - only to see their labour being fed to AI systems without their consent and without being financially compensated for their loss. This is theft, this is piracy and it is not acceptable. If left unchecked, it will rob Irish artists of the ability to earn a living and will replace them with a cheap soulless imitation. Irish artists need this House to protect the copyright and income of artists with a fit-for-purpose framework, building on the calls of the European Parliament. They need us to ensure no State funding for art is spent on content produced by AI, and to place the creative sector at the heart of decision-making when it comes to AI policy. We have the Presidency at the Council of the EU for the next six months and this is the opportune time to act. Whether by accident or design, putting protections in place has been non-existent or has been moving at a snail's pace. Artists have been left out in the cold when it comes to being able to properly make representations or engage on policy direction, as there are no representatives from the arts sector on the AI Advisory Council and the AI Office of Ireland. This motion seeks to remedy that, and there is a real urgency in the need to rectify this. For a State that is rightly proud of producing so many world-renowned writers, musicians and artists, and which has acknowledged their positive contribution to the Irish economy, this State has been slow to protect their rights to make a living. The basic income for artists scheme was only made permanent after it proved it could boost the economy. Many of our beloved cultural events are based on Irish artists having the backing to be able to hone their craft and share their art. What would the Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann look like if we allowed AI-generated music to subsume our native music? This celebration of Irish culture, attended by hundreds of thousands of people year in, year out replaced by a computer in a corporate office overseas. I do not think any of us wants to see that, and that is why this motion is crucially important. I commend my colleague, Deputy Ó Snodaigh, on his tireless lifelong campaigning for the arts and the great work he has done in compiling this motion, working collaboratively across the House to ensure it passes this evening.

Molaim mo chomrádaí, an Teachta Aengus Ó Snodaigh, as an rún seo. An Teachta Ó Snodaigh has done Trojan work for the arts community for many years, and I am sure we have plenty more years to look forward to. Ireland is well-known around the globe for its music, arts and literature. For a country so small, we have produced countless names that are known and loved all across the world. That tradition continues to this day, as we continue to produce many incredible poets, singers, performers and writers. Each year, Nialler9, the popular and influential music blogger publishes a list of the best Irish albums from the calendar year. Last year, his list contained country pop music, punk jazz, electronic trad, underground connections, Goth shoegaze, tin whistles, freak folk, and more. Irish artists are to the forefront in not only creating, writing and performing incredible music but they are also the vanguard of pushing boundaries and creating their own genres. In creating new genres, some are honouring our traditional music heritage by adding electronic rock, such as Huartan and the Scratch, while many others, like the Mary Wallopers, give new life to songs from Percy French, Dominic Behan and the Clancy Brothers. Our beloved Irish rap group, Kneecap, is a band that has stood up time and again to threats from the British state while inspiring a generation to re-engage with our native language. I could name so many more, each of which are a testament to the spirit of this island. That spirit is so often invoked by our own Government politicians when they travel on official duty, dining out on poets such as Yeats and Heaney. I am glad to hear today that the Minister of State will not be opposing our motion. Now is the time for action because, today, Irish artists are being ripped off. Their work is being stolen by AI to build systems that spew out AI art, which directly competes with them, and their copyright is completely disrespected. This is making it increasingly difficult for them to make a living. This is why we in Sinn Féin believe it is essential to recognise that art is the product of the labour of artists, informed by their unique human experience, creativity, and skill, because this is what separates our artists from AI. It is genuine, authentic, human experience, which cannot be replicated by machines, algorithms or systems. It is imperative that we protect this experience and ensure that those who give voice to our great culture are shielded from the threat of AI. We have to make sure that we respect them and their creative talents deserve that protection. They have to be protected by their Government. Artists deserve to be paid. Caithfimid ealaíontóirí na hÉireann a chosaint.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion and thank Teachta Ó Snodaigh for his work on it, on behalf of the arts in Ireland and further afield. The motion stands up for the people who created the books, music, films and art that we enjoy and sometimes do not enjoy. That is so important to our very essence. AI has many legitimate and beneficial uses, and many people, including artists, use it as a tool. The issue before us this evening is much simpler. Irish artists deserve fairness. Today, the copyrighted work of writers, musicians, performers, filmmakers and visual artists is being used to train powerful AI systems without their consent and without payment. Those systems can then generate content that competes directly with the very people whose creativity made them possible. This is completely wrong. For many artists, copyright is not an abstract legal principle; it is their income. It is how they pay their rent, support their families, and continue creating, yet individual artists are expected to take on some of the biggest technology companies in the world to defend their rights. This is neither fair nor realistic. The warnings are coming from every corner of the creative sector. The Irish Music Rights Organisation, IMRO, the Irish Writers Union, Irish Equity, the Screen Composers Guild, the Irish Creative Industries Forum and many others have called for action. International organisations representing creators have warned that AI could place billions of euro of creative income at risk over the coming years. Ireland now has an opportunity to lead. As we hold the Presidency of the Council of the European Union, we should champion a modern copyright framework that protects creators, ensures transparency, delivers fair remuneration, and gives artists meaningful control over how their work is used. Art is not simply data to be harvested. It is the product of human imagination, lived experience, hard work, and skill. It reflects our communities, language, history and future. If we value Irish culture, we must value the people who create it. I urge all TDs to support this motion and to stand with Ireland's artists.

I welcome this motion and thank my colleague, Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh, for tabling it at this important juncture in the era of generative AI. This motion sets out the bare parameters to protect our artists in their struggle to earn a living through their creativity, culture and to safeguard a human connection that they share with the rest of humanity, and indeed the unique and special place they hold among the people of Ireland. These are the fundamental issues that we must address as a nation. The right of consent must be embedded in domestic legislation. Content creators must give full consent before their material can be used for generative AI models. The right of refusal must be covered too. Using data sets that use artists' works without their consent or authorisation to train large language models is not a fair use as claimed by many of these generative AI platforms. We would like to see regulation that mandates these platforms and organisations to ensure synthetic text generated by LLMs is watermarked and thus detectable. Compensation and remuneration must be included in this equation for all Irish artists. The burning question to be answered here is who owns the intellectual property created by AI, especially when that same intellectual property is plagiarised from artists and used to train these large language models and other AI models. These models produce systems with text, video, voice and music inputs and outputs, making billions from other people's genius and creativity. This motion calls for the Government to use its influence in our Presidency of the European Council to force attention on the protection of copyright of artists from generative AI. State funding for art must not be used to fund or spent on generative AI artifacts that use artists' creative works without their consent. The symbol of our country is the harp. The symbol of culture is resilience. The motto for my own county, Wexford, is that it shall be restrung and reheard. It is now time to hear the voice of our artists, to come to their defence, and to stand up to protect their rights and livelihoods before we lose them to generative AI machines forever. I ask all TDs to support this motion.

I thank Deputy Ó Snodaigh for this important, timely motion. I want to tell the story of Christina from Clare. Christina is an artist and like so many artists across this island, she spent countless hours creating work. She poured her talent, experience, emotions and imagination into it. Christina reflected something uniquely human in that, plus it was hers. Without her consent or permission, that work was taken and fed into an AI system. That system processed it, altered it and reshaped it to fit the image it was generating. The finished product no longer reflected Christina's vision. It reflected the priorities of an algorithm. For Christina, this was deeply hurtful, not because the technology exists, but because her creativity was treated as a resource to be harvested, rather than a work to be expected. Christina's story is not unique. As an artist in wool myself, I am lucky that this AI cannot take my creativity and use it. I feel extremely lucky about that every day but across Ireland, artists, photographers, writers, and musicians are seeing their work taken without consent and used to train generative AI systems. Their intellectual property is being treated as free raw material for powerful technology companies. At the same time, generative AI raises serious concerns about copyright infringement, increased carbon emissions, misinformation and the loss of creative jobs. The danger is that we become so exposed to AI-generated content that we begin to normalise it and that we begin to see art created in seconds and then ask why we need artists at all. That art is not simply the final image. Art is a lived experience, a culture, and a memory. It is joy, grief, struggle and hope all captured through a uniquely human lens. AI can imitate styles and remix existing works but it cannot replicate human experience that gives art its meaning. Too often, AI-generated images have the same familiar look, and that same polished uniformity. They lack the personal, the imperfections and the authenticity that makes real art powerful. There is a worrying lack of public awareness about the impact this technology is having on livelihoods. Behind each piece is an artist trying to earn a living from his or her craft. Artists should be treated fairly. Ireland is known as the land of saints and scholars. We are a nation that treasures storytelling, music, poetry, and creativity, and if we fail to protect our artists, we risk becoming a land of saints and robots, where human creativity is pushed to the margins. Not all AI is bad and not everyone who is using it is acting in bad faith but the technology must serve the people, not replace it. Innovation must not come at the expense of consent or copyright. We must ensure that the creative work of Irish people is respected, protected, and valued in the age of AI. We stand with our Irish artists and we must make sure that while this motion will be passed, it is continued, worked on, and that actions are taken on it.

I will begin by thanking Deputy Ó Snodaigh for bringing forward this Private Members' motion. I thank the artists and the delegation I had the privilege of meeting earlier on today. I will also mention Senator Frances Black, who has, since I have come into this role, been articulate and mobilised on this issue. Gabhaim buíochas le gach duine. I welcome the opportunity to discuss this important topic following the tabling of the Private Members' motion by Sinn Féin on protecting the copyright of Irish artists in the era of artificial intelligence. As this House is aware, Ireland is committed to ensuring that Al technologies are developed and used in a manner that is ethical, transparent and aligned with national, EU and international law. Intellectual property is recognised as a fundamental right under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. As I said earlier, was pleased to meet representatives of the creative sector earlier today and to engage in a constructive discussion on the implications of artificial intelligence for creators and rights holders. The concerns being raised by artists, musicians, writers and other creators are legitimate. It was interesting to hear the debate on "Morning Ireland" given by some of the artists tonight from that perspective. Al offers many opportunities, but creators must have confidence that their rights will be respected, that their works will not be used without appropriate safeguards and that innovation will not come at the expense of creativity. At present, the European Commission is reviewing the 2019 Copyright in the digital Single Market, DSM, directive, including the text and data mining, TDM, exception. A stakeholder consultation, on behalf of the European Commission, has been shared with relevant stakeholders by my officials in my Department, and a national submission been made to the Commission. A final report is due to be published by the European Commission early in 2027. In parallel, the European Commission has launched a call for evidence on possible new measures to strengthen the position of creators and creative industries in the online and Al environment. The aim is to ensure that creators can better control the use of their works and enforce their rights, while supporting innovation and the development of Al technologies. The European Commission is developing an Al strategy for the cultural and creative sector as part of the broader apply Al strategy, also due to be unveiled early in 2027. I thank all stakeholders who have engaged with the review process to date. We also encourage interested organisations and individuals to continue contributing their views and evidence to help inform future findings and recommendations. The Al Act establishes a harmonised regulatory framework for Al systems developed or deployed in the EU. The Act entered into force in August 2024, with its provisions applying in a phased manner until August 2028. The Al Act complements existing regulatory protections and is without prejudice to applicable Union or national copyright law. Creators are entitled to expect that their rights will continue to be protected as Al technologies evolve. The Al Act is an important part of that response. It requires providers of general-purpose Al, GPAI, models to comply with EU copyright law and introduces greater transparency regarding the content used to train Al models. Through the transparency template and related obligations, rights holders will be better placed to understand how Al systems are developed and to exercise their rights where appropriate. Effective implementation and enforcement of these measures will be essential in maintaining trust and ensuring that innovation proceeds in a manner that respects creativity and copyright. The Al Act introduces transparency requirements that oblige providers of generative Al systems to ensure that Al-generated content can be identified as such, including through machine-readable marking and related technical measures. I know we spoke about that earlier today. This obligation will take effect from August, and from December for certain models. From August 2026, the European Commission's Al office will directly enforce provisions on GPAI systems and models and, where appropriate, encourage and facilitate the review and adaptation of codes of practice in light of emerging standards. The European Commission is also pursuing initiatives to improve the practical operation of the opt-out from the TDM exception. Domestically, we are progressing legislation on the establishment of Al office of Ireland, which will act as the national coordinator and enabling body for Ireland's implementation and enforcement of the EU Al Act. The office will comprise, through its board and staff, a range of expertise that is necessary for the performance of its functions, with a role in promoting innovation and enhancing public awareness in relation to rights and obligations under the Al Act. To respond to some of the commentary this evening, I am acutely aware of the importance of having the creative industries represented there. These functions align with wider Government initiatives addressing the societal and economic impacts of Al including impacts on work and employment. More broadly, the national digital and Al strategy specifically recognises the need to support and engage workers during this period of significant transition including supporting workers through upskilling, reskilling and lifelong learning initiatives and to establish a national skills observatory and observatory for business Al readiness to inform labour market policy. It also recognises the need for ongoing stakeholder engagement, such as with the creative industries, to support a fair and inclusive transition. The Government remains committed to ensuring that the opportunities presented by Al are realised while supporting workers and businesses in adapting to change. As Ireland holds the Presidency of the Council of the European Union, during our term we will progress discussions on some of the important matters raised. I will highlight three in particular. First, my Department will facilitate discussions in the Council working party on copyright on issues as they arise in the review of the copyright in the DSM directive, and matters identified in the European Commission’s call for evidence. Second, Ireland will co-ordinate the EU’s position at the World Intellectual Property Organization's WIPO, Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights meeting in November at which Al and copyright will be an informal agenda item. Finally, a Presidency associated conference on copyright and human creativity in the Al era, organised by rights holder organisations and endorsed by my Department, will be held in Dublin on 14 October. I look forward to attending that. Ultimately, we want Ireland to be a leader in the development and deployment of trustworthy Al, while ensuring that creators are respected, copyright is protected and innovation continues to thrive. I look forward to a constructive discussion on these matters and to working with Deputies to identify practical ways forward that support these shared objectives.

I acknowledge the huge work that my colleague Deputy Ó Snodaigh puts into the arts time and again. The fact that this is our last item of Private Members' business before we break up for the summer shows the real importance of what we are trying to do here. I welcome some of the things in Minister of State's speech, particularly her comments on Ireland co-ordinating the EU's position at the World Intellectual Property Organization's Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, as well as the conference on copyright and human creativity in an AI era, organised by rights holder organisations. That is important. It is also important that the Minister of State keeps the commitments that she has made in this House. I have acknowledged the enormous opportunities AI presents for businesses, for public services and individuals, but that innovation cannot come at the expense of Irish artists. It cannot come at the cost of constitutional property rights of all our artists. Beyond the individual damage that is being done here, there is a much wider area that we have to prioritise and preserve. Until recently, behind every song, book, painting and performance was a talented artist whose work was the product of real talent, skill, expertise and years of dedication. The fact is that Irish artists are being ripped off. They are being ripped off and the ball is in the Minister of State's court. She has the authority and the responsibility to stop that happening. Mass theft is happening in plain sight. I think the Minister of State recognises that, but the responsibility comes down to her at this particular time. Most artists are not global superstars earning millions; they are hardworking professionals trying to make a living in a sector that is already marked by low pay, precarious work and poor working conditions. This is important.

AI poses a threat to Irish art and Irish artists. They must be protected. I am really lucky to come from County Cork, which I am very proud of, which has produced some amazing poets, singers and actors, including Miles Gaffney and John Spillane, who are friends of mine. They are unbelievable musicians and singers. There are actors like Siobhán McSweeney, Fiona Shaw and Jennifer O'Donovan, whom I saw recently. There are walkways around Cork where poetry is being written. Along the Clogheenmilcon walkway, a legendary Cork activist, Margaret O'Regan, has written a poem about a great Cork activist, Martin Leahy, who spent 200 weeks outside the Dáil campaigning against this Government's housing crisis. Irish artists have always been able to use art to comment on really important social events and our history. That is the power that art can bring - the solidarity, humanity, respect and compassion that our Irish artists have. On the walls of Gaza, there is now a poem by the poet Bobby Sands. Irish artists have such a reach. Look at how Spicebag and Daniel MacDonald showcase Irish evictions. They are really powerful images. It is no wonder Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael do not share the same passion for Irish art. At the last general election, Fine Gael used one of the hits by The Kabin Studio, made by young people from Knocknaheeny on the northside of Cork. They make brilliant music and one of their hit songs was "The Spark". It was used without their permission. Fianna Fáil used Asbestos’s iconic mural “What is a home?” on Micheál Martin’s TikTok. That should not have happened. Artists should be respected. They should be paid for their work and their permission should be sought.

It is an incredibly worrying time for artists. They are watching as their painstakingly produced works are used without permission to train generative AI that is then directly competing with them. No permission is sought, no payment is made and it is a huge infringement of copyright. It is downright piracy. Not only that, but these AI programmes can produce content in a fraction of the time and with a fraction of the effort. I listened earlier to Danny O’Donoghue from The Script speaking about this on RTÉ. He summed it up well when he said it was intellectual property theft on an industrial scale. I told him that my wife and I expected a huge performance at Slane, which I have no doubt he will provide.

Me, too.

He replied that he expected that we would be there in our brown boots and Stetsons. I said I would do my best. That is the reality we are dealing with. We have to ensure that State agencies and semi-State companies do not continue to use artificial intelligence to produce what should be done by artists and is actually stolen from artists. I commend Deputy Ó Snodaigh on an obair uilig atá déanta aige fá choinne ealaíontóirí agus na healaíne. Caithfimid cuid mhór oibre a dhéanamh. The Minister of State has made promises here. They need to be delivered upon – it is as simple as that. We need to look after artists.

Bhíos ag caint le healaíontóir i gCiarraí níos luaithe um thráthnóna. Labhair sé liom mar gheall ar na mothúcháin a bhaineann le AI. Dúirt sé liom it could help to generate ideas, layouts and content more quickly, leaving more time to focus on strategy and working with clients. He uses it to explore new styles and creative marketing material and reach new audiences while continuing to produce original handcrafted work. Therefore, there is great benefit to it and it is being used by a lot of artists, particularly ones whom I know in Kerry, to take away some of the repetitive and time-consuming parts that take up so much time and to allow them to use their expertise or creativity. I thank Maurice Murphy down in Reennanallagane in Glenbeigh for his input. He accepted that many artists were facing an existential threat, that their creativity was under attack and that copyrighted work was being harvested by the AI companies. I know the Minister of State will work on this and that the Government is making promises but this is the difference between making a living and having to leave the profession altogether unless the rights they have built up and the creativity they have brought up is protected. Many artists are living month to month, week to week. They are struggling to survive and now they are being asked to directly compete against machines that are trained on their own work. That is why we are demanding action. We believe that a simple principle should apply: art is the product of the labour of artists, informed by their own unique human experience, creativity and skill, and we need the protections in place.

Gabhaim buíochas le mo chomrádaí, an Teachta Aengus Ó Snodaigh, as ucht an rúin seo anocht. An artist’s work is more than just a job An artist's work is more than just a job. It is a reflection of their creativity, their skill, and their unique perspective on the world. Every piece of music, every photograph, every painting, every written work represents countless hours of effort and something deeply personal to its creator. That is why so many artists are deeply concerned about the rise of unregulated Al in the arts. Across Ireland, artists are already struggling to make a living, yet their copyrighted work is now being scraped and used to train Al systems without their consent and without compensation. Their life's work is being exploited to generate added value for technology companies, while the artists themselves are left behind. This is not an abstract issue. Artists in Kildare and elsewhere across the State are already feeling the impact. A local photographer recently told me that she had lost work from organisations that once regularly hired her but now chose Al-generated images instead. We must also address the growing threat posed by cloning and deepfakes, which undermines human artists' reputations and erodes public trust. With these issues in mind, we have to move urgently and protect creative industries. Sinn Féin supports innovation but it must be responsible, safe, and creator centred. The first step is improving transparency. Artists must know when their work is used to train Al and have access to fair licensing mechanisms. Is réimse é sábháilteacht na hintleachta saorga inár ngá dúinn oibriú as lámha a chéile, ag seasamh an fhóid ar son daonnacht na n-ealaíon agus slánú ár n-ealaíontóirí. Ní mór dúinn gan eagla a bheith orainn roimh na fathaigh teic a cheistiú chomh maith. Is céim dearfach í an Bille um Chosaint Glóir agus Íomhá maidir leis seo. Tá traidisiún bródúil ealaíonta againn in Éirinn. Seasaimis lenár n-ealaíontóirí, cosnaímis a gcearta agus cinntímis go bhfanfaidh an tír seo ina háit inar féidir leis an gcruthaíocht bláthú go ceann na nglún.

"Yet we should never forget that the product of work isn’t only the work—it’s also the worker." That is a quote from the author Robin Sloan, which I think is very apt to tonight's discussion. I thank Deputy Ó Snodaigh for tabling this motion, his Sinn Féin colleagues and all the work done for artists here in Ireland to protect what is such a treasure within our society. I thank the organisations listed in the motion, the collectives and union organisations that have fought tooth and nail to make sure that artists can survive in a society that does not reward art. It is an anomaly in our society that we remunerate certain pursuits in life but not others. We pay people to pursue corporate goals and aims but we do not pay people to pursue art, yet we all consume and value art. It is that which enriches our society more than anything else. It is important to name all of that because it is the context into which AI has now come and has not just disrupted, but completely annihilated the ability of artists to continue making a viable living in the pursuit of their art and their craft. I want to call out a few more truths before I get into some of the specifics in this debate. I am glad that the Government is not opposing the motion and that it can be the start of a conversation we need to have in the Dáil about how AI is impacting on artists. The AI committee has not yet reached our module on the creative industries and how AI intersects with it. I look forward to that happening by the end of this year or perhaps early next year. AI is coming at us from all directions. The Minister of State and I have talked a lot about the climate impact, the impact on labour displacement, algorithmic decision-making in the public sector, and the case for discrimination. There are so many ways in which AI is disrupting our lives and reaching deep into the lives of every citizen here and globally. This one is crucial. The Minister of State spoke a lot about the AI Act in her opening contribution. It is important to call out that part of this motion calls for adequate legislation, regulations and measures to simply deal with this. The way the AI Bill was handled in the past few weeks has not made me confident that the Government is doing this well. Government spokespeople all talk about how we are world leaders in innovation in AI and governance of AI. That is just not a fact, as far as I am concerned. We are not there yet. However, we have the opportunity to do so and to actually hold big tech accountable. I will get through a few points but, ultimately, that is where we get to. It is big tech that is making money. It is the systems that control how music is delivered to our ears that are making money. That is where we need to tackle this. I will get into how we need to be a little less focused on rightsholders as a result of it. That is really part of it for me. Although the legislation and the measures the Minister of State has talked about a lot around the copyright part of this discussion are being looked at at EU level, the EU has chosen to adopt a very light-touch regulatory approach to AI, despite what Government Ministers will say. Unfortunately, I simply do not have faith in that model. We need to move the focus away from rightsholders and instead look at those who control the system and the benefit they get from that, as opposed to artists. I want to talk a little about how the undermining of the skill of artistry and allowing theft of material will ultimately lead to the cessation of the creation of art. That is the direction of travel we are going in unless we tackle this. I want to speak briefly about how Irish music is particularly vulnerable to all of this. I will then arrive back at the business model, which is the issue we just do not tackle head on. This Government certainly does not tackle it head on. I will start with the point about rightsholders. While that is a crucial part of this debate, we are too focused on copyright and those who hold rights to their own creations. We need to acknowledge the fact that services that provide music to music lovers sit upon troves of music data that they can use to train AI and profit from that. They have a potential interest in AI music becoming more popular and accepted because it forces musicians to compete and, perhaps, accept worse royalty payments in the long term. That is a truth we need to acknowledge. As long as they are in control, they are motivated to essentially elevate AI-generated music above artist-created music because they are a profit-driven entity and that will be cheaper to them. Therefore, if low-effort AI audio slop is compensated equally to human songcraft, songwriters will be squeezed out over time and new songwriters, whose copyright is not used in training data and who are not always represented by some of the organisations I have mentioned, will struggle to get a foothold. That is where we need to understand the difficulty with the copyright model being the sole focus. It will benefit those established artists, some of those who are in the Gallery today, the artists we all know and love, whereas it is the artists starting now, not those who started ten years ago, who will be even further disadvantaged because those platforms will be unable to resist the fact that the AI music they helped make will be cheaper for them. We need to look at questions like whether AI music can be copyrightable. That is not settled as it stands, and we will see that evolve over time. I acknowledge that there is one platform that is tackling this, and that is Tidal. From tomorrow, Tidal, which is a music-streaming platform, will no longer pay royalties to 100% AI-generated music. There is no reason Apple, Spotify, YouTube and everybody else should not follow suit, but they will not. We have to legislate for them to do that, and that is the kind of legislation that we can lead in this country. We do not have to wait for Europe; we can do it, and we can have a greater impact as a result of it. It is those systems that are currently benefiting rather than the artists. It is those who control the system where this work is published or who even scrape it from the Internet to feed those AI models. They have a near monopoly when it comes to controlling who sees what art and they need to see a commensurate responsibility imposed on them to treat creators fairly, to protect art and to protect artists. AI slop is not something that creates new things from nothing. Its creations are always limited by the input, but that is going unrecognised, unrewarded and, crucially, unpaid. Allowing slop and the theft of art to go unmitigated will lead to no art being made. These generative AI models cannot create something from nothing; they are all dependent on raw material. They are incapable of creativity. If artists cannot survive, these models will also eventually run out of art to steal and we will not just face the dire situation we are currently in, but will be even worse off. In his opening comments, Deputy Ó Snodaigh gave a comprehensive outline of exactly the depth and breadth of the theft currently happening. Similarly, undermining the skills needed to create will push those creators out of existence because creating music, visual art or any other art is skilled work. It takes decades of people honing their craft and they do it because of the passion to do it, not because there is any monetary gain within it. Much of it is unpaid or low paid, but that creates inherent value to our lives and this tech is minimising what little money artists can currently make. Even when the owners of this tech have not monetised it, it is still undermining the years of investment and graft of artists to create something we all benefit from. Ní fheiceann muid riamh leath den obair a chuireann ealaíontóirí isteach ina gceird. Ní raibh sé riamh éasca a bheith ag obair sna healaíona, ach sa lá atá inniu ann ba chóir go mbeadh rudaí ag fáil níos fearr, ní ag dul chun donais. I want to speak specifically to Irish art, which is particularly under attack. Irish music is readily recognisable around the world and, therefore, very vulnerable to imitation. If you go to YouTube right now and search for, for example, "Irish folk music", you will see a lot of AI slop in the results. If you search for that term, you will get a channel called The Spirit of the Tavern. Within that, you will find a composition, if you like, called "Irish Pub Songs". That video has had four times the views in a six-month period as Lankum's most recent single. That is terrifying to me because Lankum is creating beautiful art. This stuff is synthetic paddywhackery nonsense with just nonsense lyrics in it. That is what we are seeing. Irish artists in particular are vulnerable to this and we need to make sure we protect them. Ultimately, we come back to the fact that these platforms and big tech have developed a business model that is parasitic. Essentially, it is "launch and iterate", "move fast and break things". In this case, they are saying they will capture the market now and monetise later. That is what is happening. They are not making the money now but they know that, unless they control it, they will not be able to make money in time. It is the same business model, the same business mindset, that has made us, the user, the product in the case of social media platforms, and it is why we are on this road to enshittification, as people say when talking about the Internet. If nothing is done, it will ultimately leave us with a powerful monopoly, just as we have seen in other areas, that we will not be able to unpick. Unfortunately, this is simply where we are getting to all the time with big tech. The Government does not yet have the political will to tackle that, to essentially hold big tech accountable, to say to it that this is enough, that the harms being wrought on society are enough and that we have to take control back. I was helped today in preparing for this speech by a friend of mine. Shane Culloty is his name. He is an artist called Winter Aid. I simply want to read out one of his lyrics to finish my speech tonight because this is what we are trying to protect when we do this. This is a song called "The Wisp Sings", which I encourage everyone to listen to after. Let me sleep I am tired of my grief And I would like you To love me, to love me, to love me This is the night when these woods sigh Come with me There are people who cannot speak Without smiling They would take me from your hand Or they would try, they would try This is the murmur of the land This is the sound of love's marching band And how they hold you like a gun And how I sing you like a song I heard when I was young And buried for a night like this Buried for a night, like this

My thanks to Sinn Féin for tabling this motion tonight. This is about far more than artificial intelligence. It is about the value of human creativity, hard work and intellectual property and whether they will continue to be recognised and protected or we allow them to be exploited without consent, without transparency and without fair payment. The success of the arts and the culture sector over recent decades is something that we in Ireland can be and are immensely proud of. From The Cranberries to Fontaines D.C., Dermot Morgan to my good friends Foil, Arms and Hog, Maeve Binchy to Sally Rooney, we have produced a wealth of talent in this country. In Dublin South-West, we are proud to count three-time Oscar winner for visual effects Richard Baneham as someone who is from Tallaght, as a constituent, as one of our own. The famous painter Seán Keating lived in Rathfarnham and painted two beautiful murals in the Church of the Holy Spirit in Ballyroan. WB Yeats was also a constituent, though just slightly before my time. We in the Labour Party are deeply proud of our record in this space. It was Michael D Higgins as the first Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht who helped reshape the vision for arts in this country. We have become a powerhouse across books, poetry, television, documentary, comedy, animation and gaming. Irish directors, writers, actors and craftspeople consistently punch far above their weight and long may that continue. I also highlight the vibrant ecosystem that surrounds creative arts like the festivals, community cinemas and local arts organisations that create space for Irish talent to be celebrated. We have to ensure we retain artistic spaces in our towns and cities around this country. Art is a fundamentally human endeavour. It resonates with people because it reflects our experiences, emotions, imagination and hopes. It should always remain that way, a human endeavour. Every song written, every screenplay composed, every poem published, every performance delivered and every piece of art created is the result of human labour. It represents, as Deputy Gibney has said, years of practice, dedication, talent, sacrifice and lived experience. These works are not data to be harvested; they are the property of the people who created them. For many artists, the royalties earned from those works are not a luxury; they are the income that allows them to pay their bills, support their families and continue creating. Today, that all faces an unprecedented threat. Generative AI is developing at extraordinary speed. Most of us here recognise the opportunities of AI. It has the potential to at least improve productivity or accelerate research, submit parliamentary questions and so on. Like Sinn Féin, the Labour Party is not opposed to innovation. We support responsible AI development, but innovation cannot become a licence for exploitation. There is a simple question. If an AI company builds a billion dollar product using the life's work of Irish artists, musicians, writers and performers, should those creators have any say in how their work is used? Should they be told it has happened? Should they be paid? The answer to all of this is obviously "Yes". Unfortunately, this Government has failed to show any urgency on this issue. For years, artists have warned that they already operate in an industry characterised by low incomes, precarious employment and insecure working conditions. Research commissioned by the Arts Council has repeatedly demonstrated this reality. The basic income for the arts scheme, while very much welcomed by those who can access it, has only reinforced what artists have been saying for decades: that creative workers are expected to survive on unstable and often inadequate incomes. Instead of strengthening the rights of artists and their ability to support themselves in a moment of enormous technological change, Government has been slow to respond. While other countries are actively examining how copyright law must evolve, this Government has remained largely reactive, unfortunately. While all companies rapidly commercialise products built on copyrighted works, Irish artists are left wondering whether their own music, writing or performances have already been used without their knowledge. There is no transparency, and it is pretty obvious that big tech is increasingly retreating from the very idea of that. We have to be more proactive in this space. Research commissioned by CISAC estimates that one quarter of music creators' revenues could be at risk by 2028, representing cumulative losses of approximately 10 billion over five years. Media composers working in television, advertising and film are expected to be among the hardest hit. Streaming platforms are already reporting enormous growth in AI-generated content. Deezer, for example, has reported that approximately 75,000 fully AI-generated tracks are now uploaded every single day. Even more alarming is the finding that the overwhelming majority of streams involving fully AI-generated music were linked to fraudulent activity, diverting royalties away from genuine creators. The exploitation and dehumanisation of creativity by big tech is not some conspiracy. It is already happening. Every day we delay action to address this, the gap between technological capability and legal protection grows wider. If an AI model has been trained using copyrighted music, books, scripts or artwork, artists deserve to know this. Transparency is not anti-innovation; it is the foundation on which trust, licensing and legitimate commercial relationships can be built. At the moment, there is no accountability or meaningful copyright protection. The current opt-out system under European copyright law has proven inadequate. It effectively places the burden on individual artists to discover whether their work has been used in the first place. This is a virtually impossible task when the training datasets are hidden behind commercial secrecy. That is backwards. The burden should rest with those building commercial AI systems, not with individual artists trying to defend rights that already belong to them. This motion also recognises another growing threat, which is the cloning of voices, likenesses and artistic styles. Technology now allows performers' voices to be replicated almost perfectly. Actors, and even TDs, can have their likenesses copied. Musicians can find AI systems generating songs that imitate their unique artistic identity. That is not just a copyright issue. It is an issue of consent and personal dignity. It is also an issue of protecting people's livelihoods. No artist should wake up to discover that their voice has been copied, their image replicated or their artistic identity commercialised without permission. That is why stronger personality rights must become part of our legal framework. I also address a wider cultural issue. Ireland's greatest strength has always been its storytellers, be they writers, musicians, actors or composers. They have shaped how Ireland is understood and viewed across the world. If we allow a future where AI systems endlessly reproduce derivative content trained on those creators without permission or payment, we risk hollowing out the very creative ecosystem that made Ireland culturally rich in the first place. There is an argument that AI can support creativity as an assistive technology, but it can never replace it or exploit it. I think that is the balance this motion seeks to achieve. I welcome that the Government has withdrawn its countermotion because, to date, it has yet to demonstrate the level of leadership required to tackle this issue. Ireland currently holds the Presidency of the Council of the EU. That presents a unique opportunity to lead the European conversation on AI, copyright and creators' rights. Instead of simply administering meetings, Ireland should be shaping policy to protect Irish artists. This motion offers practical and balanced proposals. I will make a couple of points with a view to strengthening what is already in the motion. It calls for support for the creation of collective licensing models. There is a bit of nuance here, in that a one-size-fits-all approach might not be best suited across different categories of artists. Different rights-holder sectors will have different licensing requirements. For example, a collective model might work well for book publishing, but not necessarily for music publishing. The second point is on existing copyright law. The motion states that it is insufficient and, while I do not disagree, a large part of the issue is that it is not enforced as well as it could be. I would have no issue if we were to introduce new legislation in this space, particularly with regard to AI, but we cannot allow the same situation to arise as is currently the case, where it is just flaunted with no repercussions. Overall, this is an excellent motion. I again commend Sinn Féin and Deputy Ó Snodaigh in particular for all the work he has done with respect to the arts. The Government often tells us it wants Ireland to become a leader in AI, but leadership in this area is not just about attracting technology companies to come here. It is about recognising and protecting people from the negative impacts and ensuring the benefits are enjoyed by everyone. We can and we must protect our creative sector while embracing the potential for innovation. Leadership means ensuring Irish artists are partners in technological progress, and not casualties of it. If Government is serious about supporting our creative industries then now is the moment to act. Once artists lose control of their work, it becomes exponentially harder to restore those rights and there is obviously no art without artists. As I said, it is a fundamentally human endeavour. We should reaffirm our commitment to Ireland's creative future, and to our actors, musicians, screenwriters, designers, animators, comedians, cinematographers and all those whose artistry enriches our lives. Above all, we must insist that our creative industries remain industries built on imagination, emotion, experience and collaboration, and not plagiarised AI-generated slop.

I want to correct the record. The Government never had a countermotion in. We have been accepting the Private Members' motion as written.

Okay; I apologise.

There is no amendment and no countermotion. I thank the Minister of State for that clarification.

I thank Sinn Féin for bringing this motion for IMRO, for its campaigning on this issue and for the artists who have spoken out and highlighted it. It is high time that this Government, which has gulped down big tech's Kool-Aid and regurgitated it for the public in an unthinking way, is forced to reflect on the downsides of AI, which are very many, not just for artists and the creatives in our society, but for our society as a whole. I do not think anyone wants a world where the majority of the Internet and the majority of even supposedly creative content is AI slop, but that is the future we are heading towards. That is the future unless we collectively call stop and pull the brake on generative AI. It is not an unstoppable train even now. In the AI committee, we have been treated to person after person telling us this is unstoppable. Lots of people have correctly said it is not unstoppable, but the big tech line is this is unstoppable and you have to get on this train or else you are going to lose out. That is a narrative of inevitability deliberately created and propagated by the big tech companies who profit from AI, who want to profit from AI in the future, and who are currently gambling billions on it. They are in it up to their necks right now and they want to put us all in the same situation so that it becomes impossible for us to turn back. They want to hook us on generative AI like they have hooked us on social media and then start charging us through the nose for it, whether that is through user fees, advertising or selling our personal data to the highest bidder. There is an immense hypocrisy here. I am old enough to remember those ads that started with "You wouldn't steal a car." I went and watched the ad. It says: "You wouldn't steal a car, you wouldn't steal a handbag, you wouldn't steal a television, you wouldn't steal a DVD but downloading pirated films is stealing." It finishes with "Piracy. It's a crime." I remember what came after that, which was a furore about Napster, LimeWire and The Pirate Bay. Ordinary people who downloaded an album or a video were demonised as pirates and threatened with court cases, fines and even prison sentences. Even today, ordinary people can be criminalised if they download material illegally as opposed to using legal streaming services. Legal streaming services are epitomised by Spotify, whose whole business model is based on ripping off artists financially, which it is, and now, through generative AI, ripping off and copying their music and turning it into AI slop as well. Now that we have a situation whereby big tech has effectively pirated pretty much the entire creative output of humanity, what is the official response? Are the big tech bosses being rounded up? Are they being arrested? Are they being told, "You wouldn't steal a car", given that they have stolen effectively all of the music that has ever been created? Talk about one rule for us and another for those at the top. We do not get that. We do not get any arrests. We do not get any kicking down the doors of the big tech companies. Instead, we get world leaders and our own Taoiseach rabbiting on about a fourth industrial revolution that will change everything and saying that this is as important as the printing press. We need to recognise this as the pure corporate propaganda that it is and start asking who benefits from it. Certainly not artists or not musicians, and it will not benefit people generally either. This motion is right to warn that generative AI may lead to a decline in the quality of human cultural and creative production. The truth is that is already happening. The tech industry wants us to outsource our brains to AI and to let it do our thinking, writing and creating for us. It sounds to me like a very dystopian future that we should be doing everything in our power to avoid. Something in it gets to the heart of the kind of anti-humanist philosophy that many of these big tech leaders spout. There was one recently talking about being confronted with the cost of training AI. They said it costs a lot to train humanity. Look at all the food you have to feed a baby and all the energy you have to commit to a baby to raise a human. They said a human takes more energy than AI to develop. It is a deeply anti-humanist philosophy. These people fundamentally do not get it - that what makes art and music special is human input. That is what we see in it. That is what we appreciate. You cannot create it by generative AI. The fight-back against AI has to start now. We can start by legislating for the right to opt out of AI. No worker or user of public or private services should be forced to interact with AI and have AI deal with their data without their consent. We also need to place real limits on data centres. They are using up 80% of the electricity in Dublin and an unknown quantity of water. It may be the reason for the restrictions that we are currently seeing, but we do not know because they do not have to tell us how much water they are using. Despite the data centres being so huge already, they want to double. They want to double so that they can deal with the insatiable demand of AI. That cannot be allowed to happen. If it does, it makes it impossible for us to reach our climate targets. We need an outright ban on more data centres being built and we need real restrictions on the ones that are already here. People's needs - our need for a society which is meaningful and produces decent art - and the needs of artists and creative people, all that needs to come before the profits of big tech in our society.

Well said.

I thank Deputy Ó Snodaigh for bringing this motion forward. As Deputy Paul Murphy indicated, People Before Profit is very happy to support and commend all the artists, organisations, musicians and so on who are campaigning to bring this forward. I hope the fact that the Government is not opposing the motion means that it is actually going to take it seriously and do something in response to it. I have to say, I have my doubts about that. Before we even started to discuss AI in a serious way in this House, I do not know how many times the same organisations who are campaigning for this have asked us to raise - and we have - the extreme poverty that so many people who work in the arts and music have to endure in this country. It is absolutely incredible that about 50% to 57% of all professional artists in this country live on or below the poverty line - three times the level of poverty in Irish society generally. These are the people we are very happy to jump into photographs with when they win an award or achieve something wonderful because of their artistic ability but on a day-to-day basis the Government fails abysmally to keep them from living in poverty and to truly value the contribution they make to our society and culture. I do not know how many times we came in here campaigning on behalf of Equity and others who were campaigning for their fair and equitable remuneration for the work they do in areas like film and TV. That has still not been accomplished, as they are forced to sign buy-out contracts and not given proper payment for the work they do. Against that background, we are seeing these billionaires who run AI looking to steal en masse all of the artistic and creative output of humanity and to profit from it. The artists rightly are asking what the Government is going to do to prevent them making a bad situation for most artists and performers even worse. As Deputy Paul Murphy said, the Government's approach to AI to date has just been to get down on their knees and ask the tech bros what they want. They have got massive tax breaks to the tune of tens of billions of euro every year and anything they want in terms of the proliferation of data centres. I will tell the Minister of State one thing. When we think about 80% of the electricity in Dublin being used by data centres now, it is absolutely unbelievable. On a global level, the consumption of electricity by data centres is due to go up elevenfold by 2030. They are hoovering up the water resources and electricity resources of the planet. There will not be much human creativity, art or music if we have no water and no energy. That is what is going on with these people. They are literally hoovering it up. As has been said, the Government has bought the Kool-Aid, and so has the European Commission, it seems. Certainly Donald Trump does not pretend about his relationship with these monsters, quite frankly, in many cases, when you think about Palantir and Peter Thiel and what they do with AI, using it to help prosecute a genocide in Gaza. These people are horrific. I have difficulty with the idea that this has anything useful to contribute. I am not saying AI has no value at all. These people actually want to replace human beings and human creativity with AI. That would literally be the road to disaster for humanity. Some people think about AI as if it is cutting edge and the most advanced thing possible, but AI is like the Neanderthal. The Neanderthal had a bigger brain than the human being but it went extinct because its huge brain was mainly dealing with memory and sensory processing and was not able to do the higher functions that the human brain does. What makes us unique, and what made the human being adapt successfully while the Neanderthal died out, is our creative capacity. I refer to our capacity to imagine things that do not exist and not just to scrape memory. The problem with scraping memory is that it does not involve developing something new. It is not real innovation; it is just mixing around existing memories. That was why the Neanderthal went extinct. What will happen if we leave creativity and the future of human society to AI? I am even beginning to wonder about people generating parliamentary questions using AI. How soon before these parliamentary questions are answered using AI? AI will be asking the questions and AI will be answering them. That is where we are going. We have to stop. The Government should not buy this nonsense. AI may have some uses if it is subordinate to, in this case, what the artists, musicians and their representatives want. If we want a solution to this problem, we should talk to the people in the Gallery.

Hear, hear.

In the past couple of years there has been a collapse of many forms of media in this country. The reason for this has been that the authors of content are not getting paid for their material. It is not that no one is getting paid for the material; there is a cohort of individuals who are getting paid, but they are the people who are creating the content. Journalism is an example. It is a key pillar of a functional democracy but it is dying on its feet because social media is taking the creative content and selling it for clicks and for advertising revenue. That is plainly wrong, but the political establishment does not have the backbone to stand up to the large social media firms and, as a result, this is happening. If the creators of the content do not get paid, after a while content does not get created. The same thing happened in the music industry. Instead of artists selling records, tapes and CDs, a small number of firms started to monetise other people's content on platforms such as YouTube and Spotify and paid a pittance for the content they were selling. This means that those in the music industry have to rely on music performance in the main to be able to have a full-time career in music generation. That has significantly reduced the generation of content in music over the past number of years. AI is bringing the whole process a large step further. A small number of very large powerful billionaires can now scrape the content of thousands of artists, authors, graphic designers and musicians and replicate similar content. It is true that the quality of this content is significantly off the creativity of human content but it is already being monetised. It is already in competition with real artists for ears, eyes and wallets. As a result, it is already shutting down content creation. There will come a time, if we are honest, that the differential and quality will narrow in the future. Let us be honest, what is happening is theft. It is the stealing of other people's content. It is individual companies making a profit out of other people's work. People might be au fait with the legend that copyright was first developed in Ireland. It is recorded that St. Colmcille secretly copied the manuscript of St. Finian at night. This was discovered by St. Finian and he demanded the replica manuscript back. He felt the reproduction of the manuscript was rightfully his. He brought the case to the High King of Ireland, Diarmait mac Cerbaill. The latter sided with St. Finian, saying the famous phrase that to every cow belongs her calf and, therefore, to every book belongs its copy. What is happening here in relation to AI is in direct opposition to this. This has a number of significant outputs. Not only is it stealing and impoverishing generations of artists, and not only is it reducing the creative output, but it is also concentrating power into the hands of a very small number of tech oligarchs across the planet. This generation has probably seen one of the biggest concentrations of wealth in the hands of so few. I do not think this has happened since the end of the 19th century. I ask in that the Government side with the artists and ensures that there is an ecosystem in which they can operate, get paid properly and deliver content into the future.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion, not only as a Teachta Dála but also as someone who trained and worked as a journalist for many years creating original output and as someone who has had stints as a singer-songwriter, writing and recording original works, and who hopes to do so again in the future. I do see genuine uses of AI as a tool to speed up your creative process and to generate ideas based on your own original human spark and ideas, but, to be clear, the dangers for artists vastly outweigh the benefits, and that needs to be redressed. What is happening brings the name of the band from the 1980s Pop Will Eat Itself to entirely new levels. AI bottom trawls for free, pays nobody their due reward and then regenerates original ideas into a mishmash that sounds plausible, reads plausible and looks plausible, were it not for the fact that the AI output is input-output. It is only as good as what it trawls through. We have seen the rise of AI artists, AI music, AI authors and AI video generators. Admittedly, some of them are parodies but others are deliberate scams to outline the possibilities of the technology. Increasingly, things are being created for its own sake and the profits do not go to any original artists. Nobody can tell which aspect of a work is being used in the generative process, but it is guaranteed that the graft of artists is nowhere in it. What emerges are not the original ideas of AI, the programmers or the big multinationals that own these companies. We have had a constant fight over decades to ensure creative work is valued as labour and not treated as a hobby or a free resource. Music artists, for example, had to put up with reduced mechanical and performance royalties from streaming services. Increasingly as Deputy Tóibín referred to, people have sought refuge in live performance. So far, it is the last retreat of human artistic endeavour, but for how long? It used to be that live music was to promote recorded works but now recorded works promote live music to a larger extent. If recorded works are being threatened by AI derivatives where will our future writers, singers, actors and film directors be? They will not exist. In light of that, I welcome the motion. We in Ireland have always understood that art in itself has value. It is always a work or a craft; even if the process of inspiration can strike like lightening sometimes, it is often honed and edited over a much longer period. We cannot automate this lived human experience or our imagination. I read somewhere recently that our innate evolution as a species was due to becoming storytellers around the fire. People have spent years honing skills that can never be replicated by a machine, yet today we face this challenge that we would not have anticipated years ago. Fundamentally, the economic foundation of our work as artists, including royalties, licensing commissions and performance fees, are being further eroded. This time, it is not the music industry or the publishing industry but AI and the big tech companies. The motion acknowledges the alarming findings of organisations such as the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers in relation to the explosion of AI-generated streaming fraud and the failure of existing EU mechanisms, particularly the digital Single Market copyright directive of 2019, to provide meaningful control for the artists. AI developers can legally scrape and analyse copyrighted content for training unless the creator has opted out. I will discuss the difficulties to which that gives rise in a moment. This was originally designed for search engines and data analysis tools, not generative AI, but AI companies now rely on it to justify the mass ingestion of original creative works. Transparency licensing, fair remuneration and accountability are the very least that artists are entitled to if those companies are going to trawl through their work in this way. It is slipping away, especially with the withdrawal of the AI liability directive. The latter would have given artists something we currently do not have, namely a proper mechanism to get compensation or redress when AI systems and the companies that own them essentially misuse our work or cause economic harm through reduced incomes. This directive would have introduced a rebuttable presumption of causality, meaning that if an AI system produced content clearly derived from an artist’s work, the artist would not have to prove every technical detail of how the system ingested, processed and reproduced that work. It basically states that courts may presume a causal link between the system's output and the harm caused, unless the AI developer can prove otherwise. It is a presumption of artistic integrity, and the AI company has to prove it did not steal the work. The directive would also have required disclosure obligations, thereby allowing courts to compel AI developers to reveal things like training data logs and documentation, information that is currently hidden behind this corporate wall. In welcoming this legislation, I acknowledge that a lot of what we want to do is going to be difficult when it comes to enforceability. That is very common. The directive would have helped big time. The European Commission argues that the AI Act is enough in itself, but it does not offer any civil liability disclosure rights or anything else to win a case. The motion before the House basically calls that out and asks for measures to improve the situation, so I support it. We need infrastructure at EU level to help artists. Even if every word was taken on board and we started from where we are, we will have to follow a process in respect of what is already a race against time. If we look at how the AI Act could be improved, for starters, there must be mandatory as opposed to voluntary transparency. That is in the code of practice. We need legally enforceable obligations requiring AI developers to disclose exactly what datasets they are using, what copyrighted works are included and how those works are processed. It is quite difficult, but it is technically possible. We need a European-wide registry of copyrighted works used in AI training. That would be the backbone of any licensing system. It does not need to be perfect on day one. It could start off with voluntary submissions, collective management organisations and the major publishers. It does need to start, and we should not listen to threats to the effect that companies will just pull their money and business out of Europe and move elsewhere. That does not wash. Europe is the sanctuary of basic rights. We should stand up for those rights. We also need any opt-outs to be technically enforceable. At the moment, artists can tell companies not to train AI on their work, but developers cannot reliably identify or remove that work from their datasets. The European Union should therefore require dataset tracking. We also need more powers in relation to collective licensing because individual artists do not have that power in the context of individual companies. IMRO, Recorded Artists Actors Performers, the Screen Composers Guild and their European counterparts can. The EU should establish a compulsory licensing framework such that if AI developers want to train on European creative content, then they should pay into a collective pot. That is how radio, television and streaming were made to pay dividends, even if we all argue that those dividends are too low. As already stated, getting rid of the AI liability directive was a mistake. Artists need a clear path to compensation when their work is misused, where their likenesses are impersonated and where their income is undermined by fraudulent AI content. We could show leadership here. Ireland should use its Presidency of the European Council to push for a more targeted and effective directive. Performers should have explicit legal control over their voice, their face, their movement and their personal and artistic identity. I welcome the motion and hope that the Minister of State will take it on board.

I thank Deputy Ó Snodaigh for bringing this motion before the House. I also thank the many Deputies across the House who have contributed to the debate on what is an extremely important topic. It is only right and appropriate that it gets attention and consideration in this House and that we work collectively to address the massive challenge AI can pose to our creative sectors. We are very fortunate to live in a country that has a wonderful cultural heritage. Our international reputation across the globe is built on this in many ways. Over the last short period, we have seen the impact that AI is having on all aspects of our society. It is crucial in respect of our creative sector that we do give the time and attention here on the floor of the Dáil to consider how it is impacting this sector and how we can work collectively in terms of regulation and policy to make sure we are addressing this technology and harnessing it in a way that is to the benefit of the public and our creative sector, as opposed to it being something that has the real potential to undermine them. I reiterate the point made by the Minister of State with special responsibility for artificial intelligence, Deputy Niamh Smyth, which is that Ireland is committed to ensuring that AI technologies are developed and used in a manner that is ethical, transparent and aligned with national, EU and international law. The protection of copyright is, understandably, a concern for our creative sector in relation to AI, and consent and remuneration for works used are basic principles of copyright law. Important steps to protect intellectual property rights in the age of AI are being taken and these will continue during the Irish Presidency of the Council of the EU. At EU level, the inclusion of a provision on EU copyright law in the AI Act is an important step. As mentioned, enforcement of the AI Act will begin from August. In the meeting of the Council of Ministers in May, which was attended by the Minister, Deputy Patrick O’Donovan, it was clear that many member states acknowledge that more needs to be done, including on copyright and transparency. There are indications that the opt-out mechanism for the text and data mining exception is not working well in practice. Evidence gathered by the Danish Presidency showed that some activity is taking place on the licensing of works for AI, but that it is uneven across member states and subsectors of the creative sector. It is our shared objective that this market develops well and in a manner which ensures fair remuneration along the value chain for the cultural and media sectors. We look forward to the outcome of the European Commission’s review of copyright in the directive on copyright in the digital Single Market, including the text and data mining exception and the press publishers right. The Government will consider the findings of the review and consider the effectiveness of Ireland’s national legislation transposing the directive. We also look forward to the next steps by the Commission on possible new measures on licensing and enforcement in generative AI, as signalled in the call for evidence. As Ireland holds the Presidency of the Council of the European Union, we have a valuable opportunity to help shape discussions on the future of Europe’s digital and creative economy, including measures needed to support a sustainable, pluralistic and trusted media sector. In terms of the broader impacts of AI, the European Commission is currently working on a new strategy specifically looking at AI and the creative and cultural sector, as set out in the new European cultural strategy, the Culture Compass for Europe. This will be an opportunity for our sectors to address the challenges and opportunities of this moment of change. Ireland looks forward to participating in the development of the strategy in the coming months. The Government’s new digital and AI strategy highlighted the potential for AI to contribute to job displacement in the creative and cultural sectors. Like many other sectors in the economy, these face potential disruption. Furthermore, last year’s report from the AI Advisory Council on the impact of AI on Ireland’s creative sector further stressed the need for public policy to tackle income insecurity for artists and creatives. My Department is continuing to take measures to tackle the precarity of work and promote viable careers in arts and culture, in particular with the roll-out of Ireland’s basic income for the arts programme, which we are delighted has now been extended permanently. Under the culture council formation, the Irish Presidency is responsible for agreeing the new EU work plan for culture for the years from 2027 to 2030. While this is still being negotiated with member states, it is clear from initial discussions that concrete measures to address the impact of AI on artists and the creative sector will be further developed through the work plan. I again thank Deputies for their contributions this evening. I also thank the many artists and representatives from our creative sector for their contributions and for highlighting the real concerns about the impact AI is having and will have unless we, from a public policy point of view, collectively do all we can to protect this sector, protect the integrity of people’s creative capacities and address the potential impact on income and viability of careers in the arts sector. We look forward to working with everyone across the House in relation to building on the work that has been done and the great amount of work that needs to be done to protect what is an integral part of our national life. It is really important, from a European perspective, that we work collectively to protect the sector.

I thank Deputy Ó Snodaigh for tabling this motion and for all of the work he does in this area with respect to the arts and artists. Right now, we are justifiably and rightly proud of our Irish artists. We have a flourishing creative scene despite all of the barriers - class barriers, the rising cost of living, and dwindling and ever-more scarce support. It is now all the more important that we protect artists and the craft itself. It cannot be a pursuit only for the wealthy or a career where suffering and poverty are the price of entry. We want our artists to flourish. When I was coming over, I was remembering during Covid that arts and creative arts kept us all sane. We all acknowledged it and we acknowledged in here how important it was when we could not speak to one another that people involved in the creative arts were making it happen in almost impossible situations. We owe them an immense debt of gratitude. This morning, I was honoured to host Disabled Artists, Disabled Academics, DADA, in the audiovisual room. They spoke about the challenges. They stressed that they were not whinging or looking for a pat on the back or for anyone to tell them they were inspirational. They are men and women doing a job. It is really tough but added to that, as well as all of the other challenges they face, which are many, they face the challenge of big tech companies scraping their work and regurgitating it. It will never be as good and it will never replace the arts, but now is the time for the Government to act, listen to the arts community and move to protect that which we all agree we value immeasurably.

I thank Deputy Ó Snodaigh for tabling this motion. It is not just ordinary workers who are being made to fear for their futures as artificial intelligence continues to develop and expand. Musical artists, writers and filmmakers are also being badly hit by this AI revolution. Their copyrighted work is being used without their consent or any remuneration to build systems that spew out AI art that directly competes with them. This is making it even harder for writers, composers, musicians, performers, actors and other artists to make a living in a field where many already struggle and royalties from copyright are vital to their income. It is very difficult for struggling artists to take on the AI systems and vindicate their rights. This Sinn Féin motion is to recognise that art is the product of the labour of artists informed by their unique human experience, creativity and skill. The Script's Danny O'Donoghue on "Morning Ireland" said: ... no public funding goes towards AI-generated content, humans only. At the end of the day, if we are not looking after humans, what are we doing? What is the Government there to do? It is not there to look after robots. It is there to look after humans. It is about doing the right thing today. Let us be first on it. We know there are problems in Australia, Italy and France. We have a unique opportunity. I am very honoured to have the support of the artists in the Gallery. It just shows how important it is to the industry. It needs to be protected. That needs to be done now. Let us not be reactive. Let us be proactive and get it done now. Please support this motion.

Irish author Emma Donoghue stated, "They are robbing us in hopes of replacing us." That is a shocking statement. Irish artists, writers, musicians, actors, composers and performers are being ripped off by big tech billionaires through plagiarism or, to give it the proper term, theft. Their copyrighted creative work is being used to train AI systems to spew out "art" without the consent of the creators and in many cases without any remuneration whatsoever. The life's work of artists is being fed into systems that generate content in seconds for big tech billionaires while the people who created that work, often struggling artists, musicians, writers and photographers, receive nothing in return. Irish artists like many others were the driving force behind the 1916 Rising and represent the soul of this nation. They tell our stories and shape national identity. However, they are now forced to take on some of the world's largest tech companies simply to vindicate their rights. It is creating a dystopian nightmare. We have to stop it. Sinn Féin is strongly opposed to public bodies and services opting for AI-generated content instead of supporting the work of human creators. Public arts funding should support human-made art - it sounds bizarre to even talk about "human-made art" - and not subsidise the replacement of these same artists with machines in this new dystopian world. We are talking about artists such as Fontaines D.C., The Script, Sinéad O'Connor, Dermot Kennedy and Kneecap, many of whom have identified their work being used by AI generators. It is similar for authors such as Michael D. Higgins, Joseph O'Connor, Gerry Adams, Anne Enright, Colm Tóibín and Sally Rooney. We need to see action on this in Ireland and at a European level to protect artists' rights and income, respect their creativity and defend their livelihoods. It has to stop now.

Gabhaim buíochas le gach Teachta, ealaíontóir agus eagras a bhí linn inniu. I thank everybody who was with us today, some of whom are still with us, and those who contacted us in advance of this debate and are watching online who shared their stories about the impact AI was having on their work and creativity and to show their support for this debate. I am humbled and grateful for their support. I will try to name all of the organisations but I apologise in advance for those I will probably leave out - Irish Music Rights Organisation; Screen Composers Guild of Ireland; the Ivors Academy; Irish Equity; International Federation of Actors; Recorded Artists, Actors, Performers; Irish Recorded Music Association, Disabled Artists, Disabled Academics; Praxis: The Artists' Union of Ireland; First Music Contact, the Music and Entertainment Association of Ireland; the Arts Council; Musicians' Union of Ireland; Screen Producers Ireland; Give Us The Night; Beta Festival; and many individual artists, especially those who shared their experiences in the past day or two with the media to outline their experience of AI and how it is robbing their work, competing against them and robbing their royalties. Emilie Conway of Disabled Artists, Disabled Academics pointed out earlier that today was Bastille Day and in the revolutionary spirit, it is worth looking at what the French have achieved in protecting the arts. Even if the focus tonight is on sport, Victor Hugo led the campaign that delivered the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, which will mark its 140th anniversary on 9 September. International law was finally catching up with what was already in Ireland, having been established in the 6th century AD. It is thanks to the outrage in 1889 in France when a bidding war raised huge profits for the owner of a painting by the artist Millet while his family lived in poverty that the idea of droit de suite or resale rights brought royalties to artists. People then were not happy to sit back and let artists go without while their work created income and profit for the wealthy. That stands true to this day. That spirit continues in France where the national centre for cinema announced it would not fund art without a human author or where AI replaced a human creative role. That spirit continues in Ireland. In this motion, we say that State funding for the Irish arts must be for humans and not for AI. It is incumbent on the Government and the State agencies to act in line with the unanimous will of the Dáil on this motion. Bhí líne den scoth sa leabhar Ag Caint Linn Fhéin, a scríobh Joe Steve Ó Neachtain, laoch an Ghluaiseacht Chearta Sibhialta na Gaeltachta agus ealaíontóir ildánach, "Is é an croí atá i gceol na hÉireann a dhéanann náisiún mór den náisiún beag seo ar fud an domhain." Tír gan teanga, tír gan anam. Tír gan ealaín, tír gan chroí. Tá ár gcroí i mbaol ag an intleacht shaorga. Tá dualgas orainn go léir seasamh suas ar son ealaíontóirí na hÉireann, an croí a léiríonn siad sa ghníomh agus an cur chuige a dhéanann siad a thugann gliondar chuig a lán daoine sa tír seo agus a thugann léargas ar leith don domhan ar fad ar cad atá i gceist againn mar Éireannaigh. Tá sé go maith go bhfuil an Rialtas ag glacadh leis an rún seo agus nach bhfuil aon duine á chur ina choinne. Anois tá orainn bogadh de réir an ghnímh sin. We have to act according to this motion, rather than just pass it.

I am not sure that applause is allowed but I thank Deputies. We are getting near the holidays.

That will be the end of the applause, a Cheann Comhairle.