Reports Previous Workshops
Second Workshop Report – 7 to 9 November, 2012 – Retz (Austria)
Open Space Module
Public funds are financed by different sources. In some cases they rely exclusively on governmental money coming from ministries (finance, culture…). Other times, they depend on taxes collected from those who have direct access to the revenues - that is, exhibitors, distributors, broadcasters, cable and satellites operators. Today, however, the “market” has changed. On one hand, revenues coming from the usual media (theaters, DVD, or VOD) are decreasing, and on the other, revenues from the Internet are increasing, making their providers unavoidable players in the audiovisual field.
- Should Internet providers, mobile companies, cable operators, VoD platforms, DVD sales and public TV stations with national concessions be included in supporting of film production?
- How to can their contribution be made voluntary (like in Canada, for example)?
- How to should politicians and Parliaments be approached in this regard?
- Should said companies be offered a partnership in film and media business in return?
- What will happen if broadcasters become over-involved in deciding where the money should go and for which project? How would this impede the role of producers?
- Would the involvement of Internet providers contribute to strengthening the trans-media components of selected projects?
Various experiences by different European countries in this regard
- Croatian Audiovisual Center: We incorporated this mode of financing in the 2007 Film Act. We called it contribution instead of tax. It involves all kinds of companies that use audiovisual content: public broadcasters, VoD platforms, commercial TVs with national concessions, Internet providers, cable operators, telecom operators and exhibitors. VoD companies are asked to contribute with 2% of the total turnover, satellite and cable companies 0.5%, and Internet providers and mobile companies 0.8%. We plan to collect it twice a year, using their gross receipts as our basis. They are not happy with the concept as a whole, but no strong lobby exists against it. At first we encountered problems explaining the basis for determining these percentages. Then, last year, we passed amendments to said Act last year to resolve this issue. How to collect it efficiently remains a problem. Enforcing a law in Croatia is sometimes very difficult. However, the percentage is destined to grow: back in 2007 it did not come to much, but it has since increased rapidly.
- Rhone-Alpes Cinema: In France, we have the same system for the Internet companies. CNC collects a great deal of money in this manner.
- Film Center Serbia: In Serbia, every provider pays taxes to the government. We decided to decrease this tax by 20% of the entire amount they pay to the government per annum, and to redirect it to the Film Center Serbia. We have not yet begun implementing it.
- Netherlands Film Fund: Exhibitors earn the most profit, screening the national Dutch films that we support. They should give us something in return. We are planning to ask for bigger contributions that would result in 2 million Euros more for us as a national fund. We are also negotiating with cable companies and Internet providers. What they want in return are the things like anti-piracy law and an active part on decision-making boards.
- Filmforderung Hamburg Schleswig-Holstein GmbH: We have mandatory contribution by public and private broadcasters, cinemas, audiovisual content users, producers’ alliances, etc. The problem is that more pressure is being put on broadcasters than on the Internet providers and cable companies.
- Polish Film Institute: In line with the Law from 2005, all distributors, exhibitors, TV stations and cable companies pay 1.5% tax out of their incomes and this 3 times per year. That is why we have the budget of 22 million EUR. Despite the crisis, this scheme has continued. We are thinking of including VoD companies, Internet providers and mobile operators in this scheme. However, for that we need to amend the Law, which then has to go through Parliament - a very time-consuming process in Poland.
- Norwegian Film Institute: We had intended to support the national cinematheque and children’s films through the fee collected on DVD sales. Unfortunately, this fell through. Together with the Minister of Culture, we are now thinking of adopting new legislation that will involve Internet providers, but so far, nothing has taken place. The NFI supports film production and distribution, but when it comes to the film culture, we are not allowed to finance it. It is a pity. We definitely must find additional money for that.
- Finnish Film Board: In Finland, we intend to tax the Internet providers. We are criticized for considering that, and accused of supporting illegal downloading. But our argument says that in this manner filmmakers will be paid back in a way. We are expecting the new legislation soon. Cable companies already invest in films in Finland.
- Swedish Film Institute: It is a fact that all of us involved in the audiovisual industry have totally failed to join forces. For example, we need to contact newspapers associations. They are angry that their content is available free of charge on the Internet. Various other branches of the audio-visual industries would be worth approaching as well.
- Belgium: We have different levels of intervention. We are not allowed to raise taxes in Wallonia: that pertains to the federal level. But we do have the right to oblige people from the audiovisual sector to contribute to the film funds. Two million Euros come from TV broadcasters and distribution companies.
- Italy: We tried to copy the CNC system, but that didn’t work. So then we tried to introduce a tax on porn movies shown on the Internet and to redirect that money to art house cinema. But the idea has since been dropped.
- Canada: the Canadian Media Fund is a good example. The fund is financed 2/3 by cable/satellite companies and private broadcasters, 1/3 by federal government. The downside of the fund is that broadcasters decide which projects get to be financed and how (equity or top-up license). The upsides are: more money in the system directly linked to the market and the obligation for all projects to have a “new media” component (web site, crossmedia, transmedia).
- Denmark: We are planning in the next couple of years to increase the demand from the new media business and to use that money to support new cross-media projects, and so on. Internet providers are much stronger in the business and will oppose this. But we have to develop the arguments, think about how we will approach the problem on the political level. The fact is that in all of Europe, it is very difficult to suggest the introduction of new taxes. We need to have this money to compensate revenue from DVDs.
It is suggested that an Internet provider or someone in that field be invited to the next MEDICI Workshop
- Module 1 — The Role of Public Film Funds
- Module 2 — Coproduction, Minority and Agreements
- Module 3 — Financing Tools
- Module 4 — National Funds / Regional funds – Friends or Competitors?
- Module 5 — A diversity of voices… a real challenge
- Open Space Module
- List of Participants (PDF)
- MEDICI Second Workshop Full Report (PDF)