IRIS Plus 2019en2

Release windows in Europe:

a matter of time

IRIS Plus

IRIS Plus 2019-2

Release windows in Europe: a matter of time

European Audiovisual Observatory, Strasbourg, 2019

ISSN 2079-1062

ISBN 978-92-871-8991-2 (print edition)

Director of publication – Susanne Nikoltchev, Executive Director

Editorial supervision – Maja Cappello, Head of Department for Legal Information

Editorial team – Francisco Javier Cabrera Blázquez, Julio Talavera Milla, Sophie Valais

Research assistants – Alexia Dubreu, Ismail Rabie

European Audiovisual Observatory

Authors (in alphabetical order)

Francisco Javier Cabrera Blázquez, Maja Cappello, Gilles Fontaine, Julio Talavera Milla, Sophie Valais

Translation

Marco Polo Sarl, Stephan Pooth

Proofreading

Jackie McLelland, Johanna Fell, Catherine Koleda

Editorial assistant – Sabine Bouajaja

Marketing – Nathalie Fundone, [email protected]t

Press and Public Relations – Alison Hindhaugh, [email protected]

European Audiovisual Observatory

Publisher

European Audiovisual Observatory

76, allée de la Robertsau, 67000 Strasbourg, France

Tel.: +33 (0)3 90 21 60 00

Fax: +33 (0)3 90 21 60 19

[email protected]

www.obs.coe.int

Cover layout – ALTRAN, France

Please quote this publication as

Cabrera Blázquez F.J., Cappello M., Fontaine G., Talavera Milla J., Valais S., Release windows in Europe: a matter

of time, IRIS Plus, European Audiovisual Observatory, Strasbourg, October 2019

Opinions expressed in this publication are personal and do not necessarily represent the views of the

Observatory, its members or the Council of Europe.

elease windows in Europe:

a matter of time

Francisco Javier Cabrera Blázquez, Maja Cappello, Gilles Fontaine,

Julio Talavera Milla, Sophie Valais

Foreword

The word window brings to mind images of an opening onto the world that provides a house

with a nice view, sunlight, and a breath of fresh air.

This publication has, however, very little to do with this idyllic picture. When we

talk about release (or exploitation) windows, we are talking about a business model

whereby cinematographic films are exploited in different markets (cinema theatres, VOD,

Pay TV, and free TV) at different times in order to maximise profits by avoiding competition

between those markets. This model is all about time. Or rather, it is about time exclusivity,

if you prefer. During a certain period of time, a film can only be exploited in cinema theatres,

before being exploited successively on other platforms: VOD, DVD and Blu-ray, TV. This is

why the French prefer the term chronologie des médias or media chronology.

Anyway, call it what you like, the fact is that the model of release windows or media

chronology is undergoing quite a revolution, fuelled by the surge, among other things, of

new online players like Netflix and Amazon Prime. Recent controversies during the film

festivals in Cannes and Venice around Alfonso Cuarón’s Roma

and Alessio Cremonini’s Sulla

mia pelle

have brought the topic into the limelight. Some say that this revolution is even

having an impact on the definition of what a cinematographic film is. See, for example,

what a certain Steven Spielberg thinks about it:

“Once you commit to a television format, you’re a TV movie … You certainly, if it’s a good

show, deserve an Emmy, but not an Oscar. I don’t believe films that are just given token

qualifications in a couple of theaters for less than a week should qualify for the Academy

Award nomination.

That is just Mr Spielberg’s opinion. Mr Cuarón, the director of Roma, obviously has a

different take on the matter:

How many theaters do you think a Mexican film in black and white, in Spanish that is a

drama without stars — how big of release do you think it will be in a theatrical release?

He also said that streaming coupled with a limited theatrical model can elevate cinema, and

more importantly can create a diversity in cinema.

There are certainly many other opinions on this topic. Now the question is: why

should anybody, be it the state or an industry association, tell a producer how to exploit his

or her film? Why should a producer follow this chronology if he or she does not want to? A

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roma_(2018_film).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_My_Skin_(2018_film).

See “Steven Spielberg Doesn’t Think Netflix Movies Deserve Oscars”,

https://variety.com/2018/film/news/steven-spielberg-netflix-movies-oscars-1202735959/

and

“Steven Spielberg vs. Netflix: A Preview of the War for Cinema’s Future”,

https://variety.com/2019/film/columns/steven-spielberg-vs-netflix-a-preview-of-the-war-for-cinemas-future-

1203159522/.

Alfonso Cuarón Champions Netflix Limited Theatrical-Streaming Model As ‘Roma’ Wins Two Golden Globes,

https://deadline.com/2019/01/alfonso-cuaron-champions-netflix-streaming-limited-theatrical-model-as-

roma-wins-two-golden-globes-1202529703/.

lawyer could even ask the question: is such a system legal? Is it compatible notably with

competition law? With the freedom to provide services and goods? More pragmatically, a

producer may be interested in knowing the different systems operating in Europe.

These and many other questions are answered by the present publication. Chapter

1 sets the scene by explaining what release windows are and why they exist. Chapters 2

and 5 remove any doubt about their legality from the point of view of EU law, while

Chapters 3 and 4 describe the many different systems that apply in EU member states.

Chapter 6 rounds up the publication by providing an overview of the current discussion

around this fascinating topic.

Strasbourg, October 2019

Maja Cappello

IRIS Coordinator

Head of the Department for Legal Information

European Audiovisual Observatory

Table of contents

Executive summary .................................................................................................. 1

1. Setting the scene .............................................................................................. 3

1.1. Definition and brief history .............................................................................................................................................. 3

1.1.1. What windows are and how they work .................................................................................................. 3

1.1.2. The history and evolution of windows .................................................................................................. 4

1.2. The economic rationale for film exploitation windows ........................................................................................ 7

1.3. Discussing the economic rationale of windows ....................................................................................................... 8

1.4. The multiplication of windows .................................................................................................................................... 10

1.5. How does regulation impact windows? A limited sample analysis of TVOD ............................................. 12

2. European framework ....................................................................................... 15

2.1. Audiovisual Media Services Directive ........................................................................................................................ 15

2.2. Competition law ................................................................................................................................................................ 17

3. National overview on release windows ........................................................ 19

3.1. A diversity of approaches to organise release windows in the European Union ...................................... 19

3.2. Specific legislative provisions on release windows ............................................................................................. 20

3.2.1. BG - Bulgaria................................................................................................................................................. 20

3.2.2. FR -France ..................................................................................................................................................... 20

3.3. Rules regarding film support related to release windows ................................................................................ 24

3.3.1. AT - Austria ................................................................................................................................................... 25

3.3.2. DE - Germany ............................................................................................................................................... 26

3.3.3. IE - Ireland ..................................................................................................................................................... 27

3.3.4. IT - Italy .......................................................................................................................................................... 27

3.3.5. NL - The Netherlands ................................................................................................................................ 28

3.3.6. SE - Sweden .................................................................................................................................................. 29

4. National self-regulatory approaches ............................................................. 31

4.1. Industry agreements ........................................................................................................................................................ 31

4.1.1. BE - Belgium ................................................................................................................................................. 31

4.1.2. DK - Denmark ............................................................................................................................................... 32

4.1.3. ES - Spain ....................................................................................................................................................... 33

4.2. Free contracts: the example of the United Kingdom .......................................................................................... 35

5. Case law ........................................................................................................... 37

5.1. European Union ................................................................................................................................................................. 37

5.1.1. CJEU ................................................................................................................................................................. 37

5.1.2. Decisions of the European Commission ............................................................................................. 39

6. State of play .................................................................................................... 41

6.1. The theatrical window, fundamental or obsolete? ............................................................................................... 41

6.1.1. Fight or adapt? ............................................................................................................................................. 43

6.1.2. Film festivals as battlegrounds? ........................................................................................................... 43

6.1.3. SVOD’s audience-based strategy........................................................................................................... 44

6.2. Exploitation windows and the promotion of audiovisual works ..................................................................... 45

6.3. Take-aways from the EAO Presidency Conference ............................................................................................... 45

7. Annexe – Survey of chronology trends in EU member states

(August 2019) ................................................................................................. 49

Figures

Figure 1. Typical release window schedule .................................................................................................................................... 3

Figure 2. Price per viewer according to the exploitation windows – in EUR (illustrative) ......................................... 8

Figure 3. Breakdown of SVOD recent “film” releases by statute of cinema release .................................................... 11

Figure 4. Average delay between the theatrical and retail TVOD releases in the USA (in weeks) ........................ 11

Figure 5. Average theatrical to TVOD delay (weeks)................................................................................................................ 13

Tables

Table 1. Overview of main release windows in France ......................................................................................................... 24

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 1

Executive summary

Chapter 1 aims at setting the scene, especially by providing a definition and a brief history

of release windows and analysing the economic rationale that underlies them. Windows

refers to the various practices, laws, regulations or legislations defining the time that must

pass between the release of a theatrical film in an exhibition window and its subsequent

distribution through other channels, such as video-on-demand. Across Europe, the

timeframes for these windows are set either by common trade practices, gentlemen’s

agreements between producers or distributors, industry agreements, or by law, according

to a country’s political choice. Nevertheless, most European countries that regulate release

windows approach the issue either through national legislation or through industry

agreements. In all cases, the implementation of windows is based on an economic rationale

of maximising revenues in each exploitation format. Films are released following a system

of successive windows based on the estimated willingness of consumers to pay for earlier

access to the film. Hence, the chronological order ranges from windows with higher

revenues for rightsholders to those with lower potential incomes.

The origin of this window system stems from the Paramount Decision in 1948 in

the United States, which abolished the vertical integration of the main studios. In 1983,

France introduced the first legislation in Europe requiring minimum theatrical windows of

six months before home video release. Afterwards, the Council of Europe’s European

Convention on Transfrontier Television (1989), followed two years later by the Television

without Frontier Directive (1989), set a two-year lapse between the theatrical release and

the broadcasting of a film. In this regard, Chapter 2 explains that these rules were abolished

in favour of agreements between rightsholders in order to allow them and the member

states more flexibility. The European Union’s current rule in the Audiovisual Media Services

Directive (AVMSD) concerning windows, namely Article 8, provides for a general obligation

for member states to “ensure that media service providers under their jurisdiction do not

transmit cinematographic works outside periods agreed with the rightsholders”.

Chapters 3 and 4 provide an overview of release windows at national level. Since

Article 8 of the AVMSD provides only for a general obligation, different regulations on

release windows have been developed across Europe, ranging from legislative and

regulatory approaches to free-market-contractual and sectoral-industry-agreement

approaches. The various frameworks of windows depend on the national and cultural

characteristics of each country. While many of them have opted for a minimum requirement,

as in the AVMSD, by referring to contractual or industry agreements to organise release

windows, others have implemented a more elaborate framework for release windows

through legislative or regulatory provisions. The third chapter focuses on the different

legislative or regulatory approaches in a selection of countries in the European Union,

namely Bulgaria, France, Austria, Germany, Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands and Sweden.

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 2

While France and Bulgaria have adopted specific or general legislative provisions on release

windows, all the others have chosen to organise windows through film support rules. In

these countries, access to public support is, indeed, conditioned upon the respect of release

windows by the film concerned. The fourth chapter examines self-regulatory approaches,

either through industry agreements or free contracts, in a set of countries, such as Belgium,

Denmark, Spain and the United-Kingdom, where release windows are set up through a case-

by-case contractual practice.

Chapter five deals with the Cinéthèque case of 11 May 1985 of the European Court

of Justice as well as the European Commission’s decision in the Nederlandse Federatie voor

Cinematografie case (1995). In the Cinéthèque case, the Court endorsed the principle of

media chronology, and the European Commission followed its ruling. Whereas the system

of windows in itself does not violate the EU internal market rules or the EU competition

rules, in practice, its application may create effects prohibited under those very EU laws.

However, for both the Court and the European Commission, such systems can nevertheless

be acceptable under EU law given their aim of promoting film production.

The final chapter presents an overview of the state of play of release windows in

Europe and discusses the different approaches advocated on the issue with regard to their

relevance or obsolete nature. This chapter also provides an insight into the discussions on

the topic that took place at the “Cinema windows across Europe” conference which was

organised by the European Audiovisual Observatory in Rome on 17 June 2019.

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 3

1. Setting the scene

1.1. Definition and brief history

1.1.1. What windows are and how they work

Release windows, statutory windows, release patterns, exploitation windows’ regulations

or media chronology; there are many terms to refer to the more or less flexible practices or

territory-based legislation regarding the time that must pass between the release of a

theatrical film in an exhibition window and its distribution in the following one. In some

countries, only common trade practices can be observed; in others, there are gentlemen’s

agreements between producers, distributors and exhibitors to respect a certain margin of

time between windows; and there are also countries where industry associations have

signed agreements to establish the framework for release windows. In a few countries, the

release windows are regulated by law.

The release windows are conceived in chronological order going from windows with

higher potential revenues for the rightsholders and a lower number of potential viewers to

those with lower potential revenues for the rightsholders and a higher number of potential

viewers; to date, by and large, the common chronology would be as follows: cinema

theatres, TVOD/Physical retail, TVOD/Physical rental, pay-TV, SVOD and free TV (although

the position of the last two can be interchangeable or simultaneous).

Figure 1. Typical release window schedule

Source: European Audiovisual Observatory

There is always a buffering zone between two consecutive exploitation windows, notably

in the case of paying windows, during which there seems to be a sharp decline in the

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 4

potential earnings through the first window – in other words, most revenues are collected

at the beginning of the window, but the film is not yet released in the next one; this

buffering period can be a deterrent for viewers waiting for the next window to access the

film. Conversely, the effect of market and advertising campaigns fades away quickly;

moreover, it is worth noting that the first window of exploitation represents the lion’s share

of investment in marketing and advertising – sometimes all of it. The discussion over

release windows lies at the core of the dichotomy between trying to stretch and squeeze

the possibilities of each window and taking advantage of the buzz generated by the film in

the preceding window.

An approach with release windows not ranked in the traditional chronological order

has been tested, with day-and-date releases (simultaneous release in different windows)

and an alteration of the order of the windows, these being rather the exception to the rule.

Even in those cases where day-and-date was positive for the overall revenues of the film,

it is difficult to assess the potential results a traditional release would have had and to what

extent it was the novelty effect that made consumers eager to test the new possibility – in

other words, to what extent this formula may have worked because of its exceptionality.

1.1.2. The history and evolution of windows

The pre-history of the release window system can be found in the American exhibition

structures during the Hollywood studio system era. Prior to the US Supreme Court’s

Hollywood Antitrust Decision

in 1948 (also known as the Paramount Decision), which put

an end to the vertical integration of the main studios, Hollywood majors owned and

controlled the production, distribution and exhibition of their films, enjoying a position of

power when negotiating with independent cinema theatres. According to the Decision, “the

five majors in 1945 had interests in somewhat over 17 per cent of the theatres in the United

States […] Those theatres paid 45 per cent of the total domestic film rental received by all eight

defendants.”

Until then, de facto, each of the majors had its own exhibition circuit (its own

theatrical window) and independent theatres only got to show studio movies wherever each

major did not own a theatre or did not have enough capacity for the planned launch of each

film. Otherwise, their offer was limited to showing re-runs or films produced outside the

studio system. Even after the Decision, a distinction can be made between first-run and

second-run theatres, showing first releases and re-runs respectively. Therefore, even before

television appeared on the scene, there were several sub-windows within the only available

window.

Broadcasting has been blamed for the drop in cinema attendance; however,

although it certainly played an important role, the reality seems to be more complex than

Ranaivoson, H., De Vinck, S., Van Rompuy, B. (2014) Analysis of the Legal Rules for Exploitation Windows and

Commercial Practices in EU Member States and of the Importance of Exploitation Windows for New Business

Practices, iMinds and SMIT, Gent.

United States v. Paramount Pictures, 334 U.S. 131 (1948),

https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep334/usrep334131/usrep334131.pdf

Three of the majors, known as the Little Three did not own theatres.

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 5

that. Demographic changes along with the diversification of entertainment and leisure

activities after WWII certainly played a fundamental role in the decline of the exhibition

sector in developed countries all around the world. When television reached a relevant

household penetration rate (early 1950s in North America, and soon after in Europe),

broadcasting started to be perceived as a challenge to the theatrical exhibition sector, but

also as an opportunity for production companies. By this time, several years after the

Paramount Decree, the American production sector was mostly detached from the

exhibition sector; therefore, their interests were rather different, with Hollywood majors

willing to license theatrical content to television, yet keeping new productions for the

theatrical circuit due to the pressure of the exhibition sector but also in order to maximise

their gains, and in so doing, establishing a first form of window system. Moreover, in 1956,

AMPEX developed the VTR (video tape recorder), making it possible to broadcast recorded

programmes; in parallel to some unsuccessful, limited experiments by American majors

with pay-TV offers, including theatrical films, most Hollywood majors took advantage of

this new technical development to produce TV content.

Betamax and VHS brought in another release window (home video) in the mid-

1970s, making it possible for theatrical films to enter into the consumers’ living rooms. In

this case, as opposed to television, the video window was not competing in content with

the cinemas (most of the home video supply were theatrical films), so the key for the studios

was to define a clear release window schedule. A “six-month window was the compromise

reached between Hollywood studios, theatre owners, and video retailers”,

but it

progressively narrowed to the point that sometimes home video releases were announced

while the film was still on in theatres. This trend continues to date; according to NATO

(National Association of Theatre Owners), the DVD release window has shrunken by three

weeks in the last five years (3 months and 7 days since theatrical release in 2018).

In any case, the correlation between the appearance of television and home video

and the decline in theatrical admissions is quite illustrative. For instance, in the United

Kingdom, admissions went from a peak 1.6 billion admissions in 1946 to 1.1 billion in 1956

and 288 million in 1966.

In other territories, such as Japan, the story is quite similar: from

1.1 billion admissions in 1958 to less than half (511 million) five years later, down to under

200 million for most of the 1970s.

In Australia, in spite of a sharp population hike – 43%

between 1957 and 1974 – theatrical admissions sunk over that same period by 45%,

dropping to 68 million in 1974.

In the United States, average admissions per capita went

from above 35 in the mid-1940s down to 15 in the mid-1950s, falling to an all-time low of

Tryon, Chuck (2009). Movies in the Age of Media Convergence. Rutgers University Press.

http://www.natoonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Major-Studio-Release-Windows-DVD-3_7_19.pdf.

BFI Statistical Yearbook 2018, https://www.bfi.org.uk/sites/bfi.org.uk/files/downloads/bfi-statistical-

yearbook-2018.pdf.

Motion Pictures Producers Association of Japan (EIREN), http://eiren.org/statistics_e/index.html.

Screen Australia, https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/fact-finders/cinema/industry-trends/historical-

admissions/1954-1974.

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 6

circa three admissions per capita in 1971, with around 5 admissions per capita a year ever

since, until it started a very mild decline in the mid-2000s.

The first legislation on release windows in Europe came from France in a law

developed by a Decree in 1983

, which established a minimum theatrical window of six

months before home video release. At European level, the European Convention on

Transfrontier Television of 1989 initially set a two-year lapse between theatrical release

and broadcasting.

Later that same year, the EEC “Television Without Frontiers” Directive

mirrored this requirement.

However, successive updates of these two latter pieces of

legislation have eliminated this requirement (see chapter 2). Currently, most European

countries regulating release windows approach the issue either via national legislation (see

chapter 3) or through industry agreements (see chapter 4).

The first commercial VOD offer dates back to the 1990s, mostly through set-top

boxes (offered by cable and IPTV operators). Higher household penetration rates for

Internet access along with a higher bandwidth have allowed OTT services (streaming VOD

services through the Internet, such as iTunes, Hulu or Netflix) to progressively gain

momentum since the beginning of the century. VOD has ushered in two main changes of

different magnitudes: firstly, for the home video window, with TVOD (transactional video-

on-demand) progressively replacing both the video rental and retail markets – a

technological change which has no major implications for the business model or the overall

market share of the home video industry (TVOD and physical videos combined); and more

importantly, through SVOD (subscription video-on-demand) services, where a catalogue of

content (significantly films, including theatrical films) is made available to the user for a

monthly fee. Some parallelisms can be drawn between the irruption of SVOD and television.

On the one hand, it has been perceived as a threat to the exhibition sector (as well as to

traditional pay-TV), as it means one more slice to be shared from an already shrinking cake;

on the other hand, it has also been considered as an opportunity for those producing

content.

What is clear is that this multiplication of windows is pushing for a reduction of the

window width; the retail TVOD window, aka EST (Electronic-sell-through), has experienced

an acute reduction – by one month over the last five years, down to an average of 2 months

and 25 days in the United States.

In France, the new 2018 legislation on release windows

foresees a delay of four months between theatrical exhibition and DVD or TVOD releases,

introducing a new exceptional three-month delay between theatrical exhibition and

McMahon, James (2018). Is Hollywood a Risky Business? A Political Economic Analysis of Risk and Creativity,

New Political Economy, Taylor &Francis, London, pp. 1-24.

Décret n° 83-4 du 4 janvier 1983 portant application des dispositions de l'article 89 de la loi n° 82-652 du

29 juillet 1982 sur la communication audiovisuelle (Decree 83-4 of 4th January 1983 applying the provisions

Article 89 of Law 82-652 of 29th July 1982 on audiovisual communication),

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000858045&dateTexte=20140711

European Convention on Transfrontier Television, https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-

/conventions/rms/090000168007b0d8.

Article 7, Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid

down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television

broadcasting activities, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:31989L0552

http://www.natoonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Major-Studio-Release-Windows-EST-3_7_19.pdf.

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 7

DVD/TVOD for films with less than 100 000 admissions during the first four weeks of

exhibition (see section 3.2.2).

The mixed reactions to the giant SVOD service Netflix clearly illustrate the

disagreements within the different industry sectors; on the one hand, the company joined

the MPAA in 2018 (nothing strange if one considers that they share some key goals with

the majors, such as copyright or anti-piracy regulation); on the other hand, there have been

hard-hearted reactions by prestigious filmmakers against the release policy of the company

(direct-to-VOD) – for instance, following the success of Netflix’s production Roma at the

Oscars, Steven Spielberg proposed a change to the Academy rules so as to require a full

theatrical release to be eligible.

In France, the Cannes Film Festival amended its rules in

2018 to require a commitment to a theatrical release in France in order to be eligible to

compete at the festival,

leaving films produced by the American SVOD service out of the

festival since it refused to comply with this new rule.

1.2. The economic rationale for film exploitation windows

Films are released following a scheme of successive windows, based on the alleged

willingness of consumers to pay for earlier access to the film. The scheme is meant to

maximise the total revenues of a given film by releasing it first of all on the exploitation

window which will generate the highest direct or indirect spendings by individual

consumers. Indeed, cinema exploitation generates about EUR 7.10 per person

; EUR 3.50

per person

for the purchase of a DVD; EUR 1 per person for the rental of a DVD

; probably

in the range of EUR 0.10 per person for a large pay-TV channel

, etc.

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-steven-spielberg-netflix-oscars-20190302-

story.html.

Article 3.7 of the Cannes Film Festival rules for feature films - in competition, out of competition, Un Certain

Regard, https://www.festival-cannes.com/en/participer/rules?id=2

Average ticket price in the European Union in 2018. Source: Focus – World Film Market Trends – 2019

Edition, European Audiovisual Observatory, May 2019.

Average DVD purchase price in the European Union in 2017. Based on the hypothesis of 3 persons per

household. Source: Yearbook 2018/2019, European Audiovisual Observatory, November 2018.

Average DVD rental price in the European Union in 2017. Based on the hypothesis of 3 persons per

household. Source: Yearbook 2018/2019, European Audiovisual Observatory, November 2018.

OBS estimate for the average price per subscriber of a first-run, French-produced or co-produced film

purchased by the French pay-TV channel Canal+. Based on the hypothesis of 3 persons per household. The

price may be overstated due to the specific obligations that apply to Canal+. Source for data: La production

cinématographique en 2018, CNC, March 2019.

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 8

Figure 2. Price per viewer according to the exploitation windows – in EUR (illustrative)

Source: European Audiovisual Observatory

Obviously, the novelty of films is not the only distinctive feature of the various exploitation

windows: the collective big screen experience in theatres; the possibility of watching a film

at any moment on DVD or on video-on-demand; the lack of advertising on pay-TV also

differentiate the various exploitation modes. However, exclusive early access to a film

seems necessary to trigger higher spending by the consumer.

In Europe, film revenues are widely anticipated in the form of pre-financing by the

future exploitation windows, including the theatrical distributors’ minimum guarantee or

pre-sales to audiovisual media services (recent research by the Observatory

suggests that

85% of a European film budget is prefinanced, the rest being funded by the producer).

Prefinancing can therefore be regarded as a proxy to the evaluation of the film’s total

revenues, and the windows as the counterpart to the investments (mandatory in some

cases) of the various exploitation windows in the financing of films.

Finally, one should note that consumers may anticipate the release of the film on

the next window and therefore retain consumption until this window is opened. The

windowing scheme therefore contemplates not only the actual duration of each window,

but also the timeframe for promotion within each window before it actually opens.

1.3. Discussing the economic rationale of windows

If windows are theoretically meant to maximise a film’s revenues, several points can be

discussed:

Fiction film financing in Europe: A sample analysis of films released in 2016, European Audiovisual

Observatory, Martin Kanzler, December 2018,

https://rm.coe.int/fiction-film-financing-in-europe-

2018/1680902fd9.

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 9



The maximisation of the revenues generated by a film does not equal the

maximisation of the revenues of each exploitation window. Each of the exploitation

modes could claim, by enlarging its window, to increase its revenues. Windows are

therefore, by nature, the result of a negotiation between players, and are influenced

by the players’ market power. The level of concentration varies at each level of the

value chain and also between countries.

 The distribution of revenues generated by the end market to the rightsholders may

differ between exploitation windows. A rightsholder may therefore tend to privilege

the window which maximises its own net revenues rather than pursuing the

maximisation of the total revenues of its film.

 The exploitation windows also have an indirect impact. It is generally considered

that a film which is a success in cinema theatres will see its value increasing for the

subsequent exploitations: transactional video-on-demand (TVOD) services will seek

to benefit from the cinema release promotion effect by releasing the film as early

as possible; television channels will set a higher value for a box-office blockbuster.

Other debates arise from the evolution of the exploitation of films. They include:

 Piracy: piracy has triggered many discussions regarding the sustainability of existing

windows. Having films available as early as possible in different exploitation modes

and at different prices would allegedly convert a fraction of the illegal users to

paying consumers. This fraction is, however, difficult to estimate. It is also

technically unclear whether the starting point of piracy is the release in cinema

theatres or rather the availability of the film in the home entertainment market, and

therefore the windows which have actually to be shortened is debatable.

 The bottleneck of film cinema exhibition: the possibility for films to really benefit

from the theatrical window has also been debated. On the one hand, films seem to

have achieved most of their potential after a limited period of time: in France, in

2016, films cumulated 79% of their final number of admissions after 4 weeks (v.

74% in 2010)25. On the other hand, the admissions to films are highly concentrated

(out of the 4 548 films on release in Europe in 2018, the top 100 accounted for 72%

of total admissions)26.

 One could advocate that for most films, the theatrical window is therefore too long;

however, on the other hand, cinema exhibitors could argue that the films that will

succeed in cinemas cannot be anticipated in advance, and that there is still a need

for a window between the end of the 4 weeks and the following windows in order

to avoid consumers deferring their willingness to see the film: it would indeed be a

paradox if an untimely release on home video were to result in fewer “success

stories” in cinemas and hence, fewer films benefitting from the cinema spotlight.

 More generally, players seem to agree on the need to introduce flexibility in the

windows system, based on the level of success of films in cinemas.

Source : CNC - https://www.cnc.fr/professionnels/etudes-et-rapports/statistiques/statistiques-par-secteur.

Source – European Cinema – Market trends in Europe, European Audiovisual Observatory, Patrizia Simone,

May 2019. Analysis of LUMIERE data.

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 10

1.4. The multiplication of windows

The windowing system has constantly evolved, driven in particular by the multiplication of

exploitation outlets. From a basic cinema to a free television scheme, in the first phase, it

had to successively integrate pay-television and then home entertainment (originally only

physical

). The inclusion of new distribution modes has generally resulted in the shortening

of the pre-existing windows

The array of exploitation modes has again increased: on the one hand, new

television windows have appeared, such as the second pay-television window; on the other

hand, video-on-demand recoups a large number of segments, for instance, transactional

video-on-demand (rental and retail), subscription video-on-demand; advertising video-on-

demand and catch-up television. Accommodating these windows, which, to a certain extent,

compete with the existing ones, creates tension between the players and, more generally

speaking, assessing the best combination of windows to maximise revenues becomes

increasingly sophisticated.

The subscription video-on-demand (SVOD) window is of particular interest, as SVOD

is the fastest growing segment of the audiovisual market. SVOD illustrates:

 on the one hand, that an exploitation mode once considered as supplemental could

then become a competitor to an existing one, that is to say, pay-television;

 on the other hand, the very national nature of the windows, which, in the case of

Europe, provides SVOD catalogues with many options to propose recent films

without the need to comply with the national window regulation. Indeed, only a

fraction of the recent films

on release on SVOD services have also been released

in cinemas on the same territory: out of over 9 400 releases of EU28 audiovisual

programmes labelled as “films” in SVOD catalogues, about 39% have not been

released in cinemas in any EU28 country (this category includes made-for-TV

movies and direct-to-video/SVOD films); 41% have been released in another EU28

country but not in the country of the SVOD catalogue (due, in particular, to SVOD

services buying the pan-European rights of a film); and only 20% have been released

both in cinemas and in SVOD in the same country. Windows therefore only impact

a limited share of the SVOD catalogues.

The rental or sale of a DVD or a Blu-ray disc.

The introduction of new windows also impacted, in some cases, the supply of films. When, in the USA, pay-

television became a significant player in the exploitation of films and obtained an earlier window than free

television channels, these free-to-air television channels progressively decreased the number of films they

broadcast and favoured the production of exclusive made-for-TV movies.

From cinema to VOD: a case study of recent films, European Audiovisual Observatory, Gilles Fontaine, March

2019.

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 11

Figure 3. Breakdown of SVOD recent “film” releases by statute of cinema release

Source: European Audiovisual Observatory

Faced with this multiplication of windows, the exploitation sequencing scheme is adapting.

Even if no comprehensive statistics are available regarding the evolution of the windows

in Europe, one can note that:

 in the United States, the average window between the theatrical and the retail

TVOD releases decreased by almost 5 months between 2012 and 2018;

Figure 4. Average delay between the theatrical and retail TVOD releases in the USA (in

weeks)

Source: National Association of Theatre Owners

39%

41%

20%

Not released in cinemas in

any EU28 country

Released in cinemas in

another EU28 country but

not in the SVOD catalogue

country

Released in cinemas in

the SVOD catalogue

country

17,0

16,2

14,6

13,8

13,5

12,7

12,3

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 12



in France, where the media chronology is regulated but based on an inter-

professional agreement and therefore reflects the market realities to a certain

extent, the windows have slowly decreased over time.

1.5. How does regulation impact windows? A limited sample

analysis of TVOD

The Observatory analysed the theatrical to transactional video-on-demand window of a

sample of 1 794 films released between 2014 and 2018 in 5 European countries

. The

sample represents only 15% of all films on first release but 40% of total admissions. In

other words, the results of the analysis are only valid for the most successful films in

cinemas. The main findings are the following:

 On average, the theatrical – TVOD window is about 4.5 months; retail TVOD

benefits from a shorter window than rental, but only by one week.

 82% of the most successful films are available on TVOD less than 5 months after

the cinema release.

 Results are relatively similar between markets: there is a difference of only 3 weeks

between the shortest and the longest window. Still, the two sample countries with

the highest box-office growth rate31 (the United Kingdom and the Netherlands)

have the shortest theatrical – TVOD windows; and Germany, where the window is

the longest, combines a struggling cinema market with a comparatively resilient

home video market.

 When regulated, windows may or may not be aligned with market practices in other

countries: in France, the duration of the regulated TVOD window32 is similar to

non-regulated countries. Hence, the regulation does not distort windows, but is the

counterpart to the investment obligations imposed on the different exploitation

modes.

 However, in Germany, films benefitting from public support need to comply with a

6-month window between the theatrical and the home video window33. On

average, the window is therefore longer than in other territories.

Comparison of the release dates in VOD (source: AQOA) and cinemas (source: LUMIERE) of a sample of films

promoted by TVOD services in Belgium, Germany, France, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.

Average growth rate 2013-2017.

4 months with exceptions.

With exceptions.

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 13

Figure 5. Average theatrical to TVOD delay (weeks)

Source: European Audiovisual Observatory

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 14

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 15

2. European framework

2.1. Audiovisual Media Services Directive

In order to understand the development of the current rules contained in the AVMSD one

needs to look at the Council of Europe’s work in this particular area.

In its

Recommendation No. R(87)7,

the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe

considered that, as the rapid development and growth of new technologies was generating

a variety of types of film distribution, a need had arisen to harmonise these in order to make

films as widely available as possible. Accordingly, it recommended, among other things,

that the governments of member states:

[…]

3. Encourage the conclusion of agreements aimed at taking into account the diversification

of types of film distribution and ensure, within the limits of their authority, that priority in

film distribution is given to cinemas, which alone are capable of exhibiting films to the best

advantage, and respect the following general hierarchy of distribution channels:

- cinema,

- videogram,

- television;

4. Where local conditions permit, encourage the conclusion of agreements designed to

ensure that broadcasting stations do not schedule cinema films on days and at times when

cinemas are most likely to attract large audiences

[…]

Two years later, the European Convention on Transfrontier Television (ECTT)

was adopted.

This ground-breaking legal instrument provided for a rule concerning release windows in

its Article 10, paragraph 4:

No cinematographic work shall […] be transmitted in [broadcasting] services, unless

otherwise agreed between its rightsholders and the broadcaster, until two years have

elapsed since the work was first shown in cinemas; in the case of cinematographic works

co-produced by the broadcaster, this period shall be one year.

A more in-depth description of the evolution of the rules at European Union and Council of Europe level is

available at Kuhr M., Media Windows In Flux- Challenges for Audiovisual Media Chronology, IRIS plus 2008-4,

https://rm.coe.int/16807833f4.

Recommendation No. R (87) 7 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on film distribution in

Europe adopted on 20 March 1987,

https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016804dbf22

European Convention on Transfrontier Television, 5 May 1989,

https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/132

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 16

This rule found its mirror in a corresponding provision of the original Television without

Frontiers Directive (TwFD) of 1989.

Article 7 imposed on member states the obligation to

ensure that

television broadcasters under their jurisdiction do not broadcast any cinematographic work,

unless otherwise agreed between its rightsholders and the broadcaster, until two years have

elapsed since the work was first shown in cinemas in one of the Member States of the

Community; in the case of cinematographic works co-produced by the broadcaster, this

period shall be one year.

This somewhat stringent rule survived until the revision of the TwFD in 1997, which

“liberalised” the system of release windows in the European Union. The new Article 7 simply

obliged member states to

ensure that broadcasters under their jurisdiction do not broadcast cinematographic works

outside periods agreed with the rightsholders”.

This amendment was duly incorporated into the revision of the ECTT in 1998.

Also, the

successive modifications of the TwFD

and its transformation into the Audiovisual Media

Services Directive

did not have an impact on this rule. As such, the current rule in Article

8 of the recently modified AVMSD simply provides that

Member States shall ensure that media service providers under their jurisdiction do not

transmit cinematographic works outside periods agreed with the rightsholders.

Recitals 76 and 77 of the AVMSD do not provide further information on this matter:

Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by

Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting

activities, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:31989L0552.

Protocol amending the European Convention on Transfrontier Television, 01 October 1998,

https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/171

Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 amending Council

Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative

action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities,

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:31997L0036

Directive 2007/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 amending Council

Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative

action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (Text with EEA relevance),

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32007L0065

Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination

of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the

provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) (Text with EEA relevance),

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32010L0013

Directive (EU) 2018/1808 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 amending

Directive 2010/13/EU on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative

action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services

Directive) in view of changing market realities, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2018/1808/oj

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 17

(76) It is important to ensure that cinematographic works are transmitted within periods

agreed between rightsholders and media service providers.

(77) The question of specific time scales for each type of showing of cinematographic works

is primarily a matter to be settled by means of agreements between the interested parties

or professionals concerned.

2.2. Competition law

Any system of release windows is based on exclusive copyrights. Whereas this fact in itself

does not go against the EU internal market rules or the EU competition rules, its application

in a concrete case may create effects prohibited under the said EU rules.

This was already

explained by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)

in the Coditel case:

Although copyright in a film and the right deriving from it, namely that of exhibiting the

film, are not as such subject to the prohibitions contained in Article 85, the exercise of those

rights may, nonetheless, come within the said prohibitions where there are economic or

legal circumstances the effect of which is to restrict film distribution to an appreciable

degree or to distort competition on the cinematographic market, regard being had to the

specific characteristics of that market.

Both the CJEU and the European Commission have stated that systems of release windows

may restrain the freedom to provide goods and services and distort competition in the

audiovisual sector.

Such systems can nevertheless be acceptable under EU law given their

ultimate aim of promoting film production.

The CJEU dealt with the applicability of EU competition law to national rules

concerning release windows in its Cinéthèque judgment

of 1985. This case dealt with the

compatibility of French rules concerning the exploitation in the form of video cassettes and

video discs of films distributed simultaneously in cinemas with the EEC Treaty provisions

on free movement of goods, freedom to provide services, and ultimately, on freedom of

expression.

The plaintiffs and the interveners had emphasised that legislation of the type

applied in France at the time had the effect of restricting intra-community trade since its

See iMinds (SMIT), Analysis of the legal rules for exploitation windows and commercial practices in EU member

states and of the importance of exploitation windows for new business practices, study carried out for the European

Commission, page 16,

https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/system/files/ged/analysisofthelegalrulesforexploitationwindows.pdf.

All mention of the CJEU in this publication will be made using its current name.

Judgment of the Court of 6 October 1982. Coditel SA, Compagnie générale pour la diffusion de la télévision,

and others v Ciné-Vog Films SA and others,

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:61981CJ0262.

See also Judgment of the Court

(Grand Chamber) of 4 October 2011, Joined Cases C‑403/08 and C‑429/08, Football Association Premier

League Ltd and others vs

QC Leisure, and Murphy vs Media Protection Services Ltd,

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=110361&doclang=

EN.

Kuhr M., op.cit, IRIS plus 2008-4, provides a useful overview of the competition law issues.

For a more in extenso description of this case, see Chapter 5.1.1. of this publication.

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 18

application prevented certain products from being made available for sale in the national

territory even though they could circulate freely in the territories of other member states.

The CJEU observed that such a system, if it applies without distinction to both video

cassettes manufactured in the national territory and to imported video cassettes, did not

have as effect to favour national production but rather to encourage cinematographic

production as such. The application of such a system could, however, create barriers to

intra-community trade in video cassettes because of the disparities between national

systems and between the different national conditions for the release of cinematographic

works in cinemas. An exception under Article 36 of the EEC Treaty could apply unless the

obstacle trade did not exceed that which is necessary in order to ensure the attainment of

the objective in view and unless that objective is justified with regard to Community law.

In the case at hand, the French system was justified because it aimed at encouraging the

creation of cinematographic works, irrespective of their origin, by giving priority, for a

limited initial period, to the distribution of such works through the cinema.

Later in 1995, the European Commission confirmed this principle in the Nederlandse

Federatie voor Cinematografie case.

According to the Commission, the industry agreement

in question did restrict competition and would also have an effect on intra-Community

trade, but pursuant to Article 85(§3) EEC (currently Article 101(3) TFEU), an exemption could

apply to the agreement, since it achieved the same result as other regulatory solutions in

force in other member states, and the TwFD contained similar rules in its Article 7.

Moreover, the agreement helped maximise cinema revenues, which ultimately contributed

to stimulating film production.

For a more in extenso description of this case, see Chapter 5.1.2. of this publication.

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 19

3. National overview on release windows

3.1. A diversity of approaches to organise release windows in

the European Union

A diversity of frameworks to organise release windows can be identified in the European

Union, ranging from legislative and regulatory approaches to free-market-contractual and

sectorial-industry-agreement approaches. As mentioned in Chapter 2 of this publication,

Article 8 of the AVMS Directive only provides for a general obligation for member states to

“ensure that media service providers under their jurisdiction do not transmit

cinematographic works outside periods agreed with the rightsholders” and refers in its

recitals to agreements within the industry. It is therefore up to the member states to further

elaborate a release windows framework, and the forms and modalities of such a framework

may vary greatly between member states, depending on the national and cultural

characteristics of each member state (for example, the historical development of the

audiovisual sector, the technological infrastructure, local audience consumption patterns,

the investment obligations of stakeholders in the audiovisual value chain, etc.).

Various national audiovisual or film legislations have implemented a minimum

requirement as in the AVMS Directive by referring to contractual or industry agreements to

organise release windows. Some countries have put in place a more elaborate release

windows framework, either through specific legislative provisions or regulation, in

particular through national/regional film support schemes (which, in some countries, are

also enshrined in legislation), or through a mix of legislative and regulatory provisions.

In general, only a few countries within the European Union have opted for specific

legislative provisions aimed at fixing the windows’ structure that go further than a mere

reference to contractual agreements (Bulgaria and France). Among these countries, there is

also a contrast between intensive regulation approaches, such as in France, and a more

general framework, such as in Bulgaria. Some countries that had implemented a legislative

approach have abandoned it in recent years in favour of sectorial agreements (for instance,

Spain and Portugal), based on different economic or political grounds, such as, for example,

the will to fight against massive piracy, or in order to adapt to new viewing habits (VOD) or

to compensate for the loss in revenues from DVD. Some countries have done just the

opposite by deciding to write into law release windows that were already implemented in

practice (for example, Italy).

The organisation of release windows can also be regulated or partially regulated

through film support rules. Different approaches exist here too; in some member states,

film support is granted on the condition that the release windows are respected, without

further specification as to the length and modalities of the windows, while in others, more

elaborated rules exist which, in some cases, may even be enshrined in legislation (for

example in Austria or Germany).

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 20

Finally, many countries at EU level have chosen to leave it up to the industry to

organise release windows through sectorial agreements or on a case-by-case contractual

basis (for example, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, the United Kingdom, etc.).

Chapter 3 will examine in more detail the legislative-regulatory approach, including

laws, sectorial agreements reinforced through legislation and specific rules regarding film

support related to release windows, in a selection of countries in the European Union.

3.2. Specific legislative provisions on release windows

3.2.1. BG - Bulgaria

According to Article 45 of the Film Industry Act,

release windows shall be observed for the

distribution of films on different carriers and services. On 15 November 2018, the Bulgarian

Parliament adopted new amendments to the Film Industry Act in order to bring the existing

state film aid scheme into line with the European Commission’s Communication on State

Aid for Films and Other Audiovisual Works (2013/C 332/01). Article 45 on the distribution

of films remained unchanged, and provides as follows concerning release windows:

 video, DVD, Internet and pay TV: 3 months following the theatrical premiere, except

when otherwise agreed in the distribution contract. In practice, holdback periods

run between 4 and 6 months;

 free TV: 6 months.

3.2.2. FR -France

Holdback periods for the distribution of cinematographic films via the public broadcaster

ORTF after their release in theatres were initially fixed by practice in France, this timescale

being set at five years. As long as the audiovisual media remained public and until the

arrival of video cassettes, the legislator did not feel the need to fix windows. It was, in fact,

from the very first exploitation of films on video supports that, on 2 April 1980, for the first

time, ministerial decrees introduced a holdback period for video editing and television

broadcasting. A law of 29 July 1982 on audiovisual communication definitively confirmed

this principle and its implementing decree of 4 January 1983 set mandatory holdback

periods. Several amendments to these provisions have followed technological progress and

Закон за филмовата индустрия (Film Industry Act) promulgated in State Gazette No. 105/2.12.2003, last

amended in State Gazette No. 98/27.11.2018, https://www.lex.bg/laws/ldoc/2135474936

. To our knowledge,

there is no up-to-date English version at the moment of publication, for the latest English version available

see:

https://www.nfc.bg/legal-acts (as amended in State Gazette No. 74/15.09.2009).

See Table in the annexe.

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 21

the diversification of media (encrypted channel, cable television, video on demand, etc.).

Later, under the aegis of the European Union, media chronology became the subject of

inter-professional agreements before being incorporated into law by decree.

Today, the French Cinema code

- as lastly modified by decrees in 2009, 2016 and

2017 - provides under Title III for the general framework applicable to the release windows

of cinematographic works: (1) in the form of videogrammes (Article L231-1); (2) on on-

demand audiovisual media services (Article L232-1); (3) on television services (Article L233-

1); general provisions (Article L234-1 and L234-2). Concerning the exploitation of

cinematographic works on on-demand audiovisual media services and television services,

the Cinema code refers to professional agreements, which may cover one or more

categories of services and may be made mandatory for all interested parties. The code

further details that professional agreements may be made mandatory by the state, provided

that they have been signed by professional organisations representing the film sector.

These agreements may be binding for a maximum period of three years.

Based on this legislative framework, the professional agreement organising the

release windows of cinematographic works from their theatrical release to their free public

access was reformed and modernised in December 2018, renewing the previous agreement

that was more than ten years old, and which had been signed before SVOD platforms

appeared in the audiovisual landscape. The professional agreement was endorsed by

Ministerial Order on 25 January 2019 and published in the Official Journal on 10 February

2019; it entered into force and became mandatory across the whole industry for three years

from that date.

According to French rules, release windows provide as follows:

 DVD, Blu-ray, TVOD: 4 months after theatrical release, or 3 months, upon

derogation granted by the Centre national du cinema et de l’image animée (French

national film fund, CNC), for films with less than 100 000 admissions in the first

four weeks following their theatrical release.

 Pay-TV film channels (and certain SVOD upon specific conditions):

- First release window: 8 months after theatrical release, or 6 months upon

derogation for films with less than 100 000 admissions in the first four weeks

following their theatrical release. In order to benefit from this window, pay-TV

film channels have to meet certain conditions (relating to investment,

broadcasting quotas for French and European works, etc.), otherwise, windows

are set at 18 months after theatrical release (or 16 months upon derogation).

- Second release window: 17 months after theatrical release, or 15 months upon

derogation for films with less than 100 000 admissions in the first four weeks

Title III of the Code du cinema et de l’image animée (Cinema code), consolidated version of 15 April 2019,

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000020908868

Arrêté du 25 janvier 2019 portant extension de l’accord pour le réaménagement de la chronologie des

médias du 6 septembre 2018 ensemble son avenant du 21 décembre 2018, Version consolidée,

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do;jsessionid=41564E9F4949FFBA842A5EF0C2CF45B4.tplgfr34s_1

?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000038109708.

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 22

following their theatrical release if the service concerned has concluded an

agreement with professional film organisations.

In all other cases, the period

will be extended to 24 months (22 months if derogations are granted).

This second release window shall also apply to SVOD services that have concluded

an agreement with professional film organisations and have taken a number of

commitments relating to investment, broadcasting quotas for French and European

works, etc.

 Free-TV and non-film pay-TV channels:

- 22 months if they invest 3.2% of their turnover in the co-production of European

films (20 months upon derogation), or

- 30 months after theatrical release (28 months upon derogation).

 SVOD (without an agreement with professional film organisations):

- 30 months after theatrical release (or 28 months for films with less than

100 000 admissions) if the service concerned agrees to support the French and

European film industries by meeting production

and share in catalogue

quotas

, by paying the so-called “video tax” to the CNC, and by signing an

agreement with the CSA.

- 17 months after theatrical release (or 15 months for films with less than 100

000 admissions) in the case of fiction films of French original expression with a

budget of less than EUR 1.5 million, where the exploitation rights of the work

concerned have been the subject of a proposal to acquire from all publishers of

services subject to a window of less than 22 months or more, which has not

given rise, until the end of the window of exclusive exploitation in cinemas, to

any purchase or pre-purchase under that window, whereas such rights were

contractually available.

- 36 months after theatrical release, or 34 months upon derogation for films with

less than 100 000 admissions.

The agreement with the professional film organisations shall detail a series of commitments, in particular: a

commitment to disseminate or make available European cinematographic works and works in French; a

financial commitment from the service on the basis of a guaranteed minimum per subscriber; this

commitment may also include, where applicable, a guaranteed investment amount in absolute value; an

investment diversity clause; a commitment to editorialise the offer of cinematographic works on the service;

or a commitment to pre-finance European and French original works (relating to investment, broadcasting

quotas for French and European works, etc.).

21% of turnover for European works and 17% for works in original French language, including 25% of this

contribution to be invested in rights acquisition or in co-production for those services with a yearly net

turnover of over EUR 50 million.

60% of European works and 40% of works of French original expression.

Blocman, A., New media chronology agreement finally signed, IRIS 2019 2:1/12,

http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris/2019/2/article12.en.html

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 23



Free VOD (for example, YouTube): 44 months after theatrical release (or 42 months

upon derogation).

Compliance with the regulatory framework on release windows is a prerequisite for being

eligible for public funding in France.

Recently, a report carried out by Mr. Dominique Boutonnat for the French

Government on the private financing of the production and distribution of cinematographic

and audiovisual works

made some recommendations concerning the need to update

release windows in France in the light of the evolution of consumption patterns, in parallel

with a review of broadcasters' investment obligations.

The report suggests that in the long term, the objective would be for release

windows to be negotiated contractually by the producer and the distributor, film by film,

while keeping a few safeguards in law. It recommends that the law continue to set the

exclusivity period for theatrical exploitation, and proposes some developments concerning

the implementation of this objective in practice, through contractual negotiation, and in

particular:

 Television channels should be more interested in cinema by becoming more

"customers", which would mean, in particular, reviewing the holdback periods for

the broadcasting of films on television, which are becoming outdated due to new

consumption patterns (VOD).

 A new definition of broadcasters’ financing obligations towards cinematographic

and audiovisual production, which may have an impact on both the broadcasters'

interest in production and the interest of private investors in adding value to the

various release windows. It is essential, according to the report, to reflect on the

advantages for producers and broadcasters alike, including VOD platforms, of

moving from an obligation currently based mainly on pre-purchases (which, in

some cases, includes producer shares) to an obligation based more on a rights’

purchase approach.

 The report also recommends that the distributor, in agreement with the producer,

should be able to evaluate the best release strategy on the various windows once

the film is finished, without necessarily going through cinema theatres. Indeed,

the work’s rightsholders should, according to the report, be able to optimize each

release window to the real potential of each film by deciding whether or not to

refer to a theatrical release, by leaving the possibility of "sliding" windows or by

reselling windows that have not been pre-purchased.

 Finally, permanently updating release windows should, according to the report,

give more importance to the "second life" of films, and to the enhancement of the

catalogues that constitute the assets of companies, an asset that is still

insufficiently exploited today. Enhancing the value of the heritage assets

represented by catalogues of works would enable their long-term exploitation to

Boutonnat, D., Rapport sur le financement privé de la production et de la distribution cinématographiques

et audiovisuelles, December 2018,

http://www.culture.gouv.fr/Espace-documentation/Rapports/Rapport-sur-

le-financement-prive-de-la-production-et-de-la-distribution-cinematographiques-et-audiovisuelles.

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 24

generate income that could be reinvested upstream in the development phase of

and financing plan for subsequent works.

The report recommends that these changes be organised gradually, with a strategy to be

defined and implemented in stages over a period of three to five years, along with inter-

professional negotiation on the subject.

Table 1. Overview of main release windows in France

DVD

TVOD

Film pay TV (+

certain SVOD)

Free TV (+ non-

film pay TV)

SVOD

4 months

(3 months*)

7 months

(3 months*)

window:

With conditions:

(investment, quotas): 8

months (6 months*).

Without conditions: 18

months (16 months*).

window:

With a professional

agreement: (also

applicable to SVOD with

an agreement)

17 months (15 months*)

Without a professional

agreement:

24 months (22 months*)

With investment:

22 months (if 3.2%

turnover investment in

the production of

European works) (20

months*)

Without investment:

30 months (28

months*)

window:

With conditions: (quotas,

video tax, agreement CSA)

30 months (28 months*)

window:

With conditions: (quotas,

video tax, agreement CSA)

17 months (15 months*)

for fiction films of French

original expression of less

than EUR 1.5 million, IF

no pre-acquisition by the

previous window

window:

36 months (34 months*)

*Derogation available, upon declaration by rightsholders to the CNC, for films with less than 100 000 admissions

in the first four weeks after theatrical release.

3.3. Rules regarding film support related to release windows

Some countries have specific rules regarding film support related to release windows. In

these countries, films that receive public support are compelled to respect the release

windows, whereas those that have not received such support do not.

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 25

3.3.1. AT - Austria

Article 11a of the Law on Film Funding (Filmförderungsgesetz – FifoeG)

sets out that

certain release windows (“blocking periods”) have to be respected. These periods are set

down in the Austrian Film Institute’s Funding Guidelines (Förderungsrichtlinien, hereinafter

referred to as the ÖFI guidelines),

which entered into force on 1 January 2019.

The ÖFI guidelines provide that, in order to ensure the protection of the individual

exploitation stages of a film, whoever receives funding is not permitted to exploit or allow

others to exploit the funded film through picture carriers in Austria or in German-language

versions (including synchronised or subtitled versions) abroad, in television transmissions,

or in any other manner prior to the expiry of the following holdback periods following the

regular first theatrical exploitation in Austria (“regular first run”):

 Picture carrier exploitation (DVD, Blu-ray…): 6 months / 4 months upon reasoned

request to the Film Institute / 3 months in exceptional cases upon decision of the

Supervisory Board of the Film Institute based on a detailed and specially developed

exploitation concept by the producer.

 VOD, near-VOD, and pay-per-view: 6 months / 4 months upon reasoned request to

the Film Institute / 3 months in exceptional cases upon decision of the Supervisory

Board of the Film Institute. In order to gain experience concerning innovative

multimedia-based exploitation concepts, the Supervisory Board may still further

reduce this period in very exceptional cases and in line with the project if this is

necessary for the best possible exploitation of the film and if it does not endanger

the cinema exploitation.

 Pay TV: 12 months / 8 months upon reasoned request to the Film Institute / 6

months in exceptional cases upon decision of the Supervisory Board of the Film

Institute.

 Free TV: 18 months / 12 months upon reasoned request to the Film Institute / 6

months in exceptional cases upon decision of the Supervisory Board of the Film

Institute / 4 months in exceptional cases for films which have been produced with

the participation of a television provider, and in the event of a particularly high

financial participation from the television provider.

Holdback periods may no longer be reduced if the exploitation of the film had already

started prior to the decision on the reduction of the holdback period in the exploitation

Bundesgesetz vom 25. November 1980 über die Förderung des österreichischen Films

(Filmförderungsgesetz),

https://www.jusline.at/gesetz/fifoeg/gesamt

Förderungsrichtlinien (Filminstitut’s Funding Guidelines), 1 January 2019,

www.filminstitut.at/de/view/files/download/forceDownload/?tool=12&feld=download&sprach_connect=765

for an English version, see:

www.filminstitut.at/en/view/files/download/forceDownload/?tool=12&feld=download&sprach_connect=152.

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 26

stage applied for. Furthermore, if the holdback periods are violated, the funding pledge

shall be revoked. Funds already disbursed shall be reclaimed.

3.3.2. DE - Germany

Section 4 of the German Film Law on film funding (Filmförderungsgesetz – FFG)

sets out

that films supported by the German Federal Film Board (FFA) or by the German Federal Film

Funds (DFFF) have to respect certain release windows (“blocking periods”). Article 53 of the

FFG establishes the general rule concerning the different release windows that the film has

to respect after its first theatrical release, whereas Article 54 provides for certain cases

where a window reduction is possible, following application by the producer, provided it is

not contrary to the interests of the film industry.

According to these rules, release windows are as follows in Germany:

 Picture carrier exploitation (DVD, Blu-ray..), TVOD, pay-per-view: 6 months after

the regular premiere / may be reduced to 5 or 4 months in exceptional cases.

 Pay-TV and SVOD services: 12 months / may be reduced to 9 or 6 months in

exceptional cases.

 Free-TV and free VOD services: 18 months / may be reduced to 12 or 6 months in

exceptional cases.

As a general rule, individual projects whose economic success requires a different sequence

of exploitation may benefit from the reduction or waiving of holdback periods. At the

request of the producer, the regular holdback periods for films co-produced with a

television broadcaster may be shortened to six months after acceptance by the television

broadcaster co-producer. An application to shorten the holdback period may only be made

before the start of regular cinema exploitation. The holdback periods may no longer be

shortened if the exploitation of the film at the requested exploitation stage had already

begun before the decision to shorten the holdback period was taken.

In individual cases, and following a reasoned request by the applicant, the Supervisory Board may refrain

partially or entirely from reclaiming funding if this seems justified when taking into account the protective

purpose of the holdback periods with a view to the manner and time of exploitation and the precautions

taken to ensure compliance with the holdback periods.

Articles 53 „Regelmäßige Sperrfristen“ and 54 „Ordentliche Verkürzung der Sperrfristen“, Gesetz über

Maßnahmen zur Förderung des deutschen Films (Filmförderungsgesetz – FFG) in der Fassung der

Bekanntmachung vom 23. Dezember 2016 (BGBl. I S. 3413), (in Kraft getreten am 1. January 2017), (Film

Support Act, as published on 23 December 2016 (BGBl. I S. 3413), (entry into force on 1 January 2017)),

www.ffa.de/download.php?f=a8aa7d2a4a9f9c74f714bc64b7d7e218&target=0

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 27

3.3.3. IE - Ireland

According to the Screen Ireland Production Funding Guidelines 2019,

Screen Ireland

requires, as part of its funding conditions, that there be “viable theatrical windows for all

projects especially those involving broadcaster support”. In the case of feature films, as a

general rule, Screen Ireland requires the following, without giving any further

specifications:

 All platforms: 24 months from the date of the first theatrical screening (18 months

for documentaries).

Any other more detailed windows are agreed in contracts between the parties concerned.

In practice release windows are the same as in the United Kingdom.

3.3.4. IT - Italy

Italy first set theatrical windows by law in 2018, through Ministerial Decree No. 531 of 29

November 2018,

adopted pursuant to Law No. 220/2016 on cinema and audiovisual

works.

Compliance with the regulatory framework on release windows is a prerequisite

for being eligible for public funding (including tax credits) in Italy. In addition, in case of

violations of the provisions on release windows, the productions might not be admitted to

the tax credit or other fiscal or financial benefits for cinematographic productions.

Article 1 of the decree requires a holdback period of 105 days after the first

theatrical release of an Italian cinematographic work (defined as a work with a duration

superior to 52 minutes) before exploitation on any other - linear or non-linear - platform.

Some exceptions based on the number of admissions and the type of content are provided

in the decree, with a view to allowing small (Italian) productions to circulate faster and

more easily on other platforms while possibly reducing the risk of piracy.

In practice, the decree only established by law what had been a well-established

practice until then, a practice which was called into question in September 2018, following

the controversy over the day-and-date release of an Italian film produced by Netflix, "Sulla

mia pelle” (On My Skin), which was simultaneously released in theatres and on the

streaming platform.

More specifically, according to Italian rules, release windows provide as follows:

www.screenireland.ie/images/uploads/general/Production_Funding_Guidelines_2019_1.pdf.

See Table in the annexe.

Decreto ministeriale n. 531, 29 novembre 2018 (Ministerial decree No. 531 of 29 November 2018),

https://www.beniculturali.it/mibac/multimedia/MiBAC/documents/1544799193923_registrato_d.m._29_novem

bre_2018_rep._531.pdf.

Legge 14 novembre 2016, n. 220, “Disciplina del cinema e dell’audiovisivo” (Law of 14 Novembre 2016 on

cinema and audiovisual Works),

http://www.cinema.beniculturali.it/Notizie/4206/66/legge-14-novembre-

2016-n-220-recante-%E2%80%9Ddisciplina-del-cinema-e-dell-audiovisivo%E2%80%9D/.

See also Pellicano, F., “New rules on theatrical windows for Italian movies”, IRIS Newsletter 2019-1/27,

http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris/2019/1/article27.en.html

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 28



All platforms: holdback period of 105 days after the first theatrical release.

- 60 days if the work is released in less than 80 theatres and obtains less than 50

000 theatrical admissions after the first 21 days of programming; the reduction

is then only allowed if, during the programming period, there is no launching

and promotion activity on the subsequent availability of the work through

audiovisual media services providers.

- 10 days if the work is scheduled for only 3 (or less) working days, with the

exception of Friday, Saturday and Sunday.

The 105-days holdback period also applies in practice to films, which have not received

public funding, with a few exceptions. For example, blockbuster titles are often released

on physical carriers (DVD, Blu-ray) after 16 weeks from their theatrical release, and some

producers have moved the release period on TVOD and EST to 14 weeks . The pay-TV

window is usually from 6 months after the theatrical release for these films, as well as for

distribution on SVOD.

As for free-TV, the release window is usually of 12 months after

pay-TV.

3.3.5. NL - The Netherlands

There is no specific provision in Dutch law on release windows. However, Article 11 of the

Distribution Sub-Regulations of the Netherlands Film Fund (NFF)

requires, for the granting

of distribution support, a holdback period of at least 6 months for documentaries and 18

months for feature films and long animated films between the theatrical and non-theatrical

release on the one hand, and television distribution on the open network on the other.

However, in practice, exemptions are given regularly, as common release windows tend to

be shorter, as follows:

 DVD, Blu-ray, EST/DTO: 4 months after theatrical release.

 TVOD: 6 months after theatrical release.

 Pay-per-view: 4 to 6 months after theatrical release.

 SVOD: 6 months

 Pay TV: 12 months.

 Free TV: 24 months

Between day-and-date of on-demand and day-and-date of Pay-TV depending on contractual arrangements

between SVOD providers and producers/film distributors.

Distribution Sub-Regulations of 2018, https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0041999/2019-03-19.

See in the annexe for details on holdback periods in practice.

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 29

It is also worth mentioning several experiments with shorter windows and day-and-date

release (for example, picl.nl).

3.3.6. SE - Sweden

According to a study commissioned by the European Commission and published in July

2014,

Sweden removed release requirements from film state aid rules in 2013, making it

possible to support films that can be shown on platforms other than cinemas (the objective

nevertheless remaining for a film to be released in cinemas).

However, the Swedish Film Institute (Svenska Filminstitutet – SFI) still sets

requirements related to the visibility and performance of the supported work. A distribution

plan for Sweden, scheduled and confirmed with a Letter of Intent (LOI), is required for all

production funding schemes. In the case of the reference funding scheme Audience Related

Support (Publikrelaterat Stöd, PRS), a contract for theatrical distribution should be

submitted with the application. In addition, for the Moving Sweden scheme

(devoted to

low-budget films), Swedish Television (SVT) will show the feature film four months after its

premiere at a festival and/or in the cinema. After that, the release schedule in other

windows in Sweden should be as follows:

 Swedish Television (SVT): 4 months after the premiere of the film at a festival

and/or in the cinema;

 TVOD: 1 month after release on SVT (that is, 5 months);

 SVOD and Pay TV: 8 months after release on SVT (that is, 12 months).

https://picl.nl/over-picl/.

Ranaivoson, H., De Vinck, S., Van Rompuy, B., “Analysis of the legal rules for exploitation windows and

commercial practices in EU Member States and of the importance of exploitation windows for new business

practices, A study prepared for the European Commission DG Comunications Networks, Content & Technology

by iMinds (SMIT), July 2014,

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/analysis-legal-rules-

exploitation-windows-and-commercial-practices-eu-member-states.

The film fund commissioners will decide which films might not need a theatrical release. Applicants need to

present an audience plan. See also Annexe – Information Sheets for every Member State’s release window

system, iMinds (SMIT) study for the European Commission, op. cit.

https://www.filminstitutet.se/sv/sok-stod/filminstitutets-stod/produktionsstod/nya-moving-sweden-

produktionsstod.

“Mapping of films and audiovisual public funding criteria in the EU”, European Audiovisual Observatory,

Strasbourg, 2019,

https://rm.coe.int/mapping-of-film-and-audiovisual-public-funding-criteria-in-the-

eu/1680947b6c. See also details on holdback periods in practice in the annexe.

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 30

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 31

4. National self-regulatory approaches

As previously mentioned, the general obligation of Article 8 of the AVMS Directive

concerning exploitation periods has been implemented as such in the national laws of some

member states, which refer to agreements at industry level or to case-by-case contractual

practice to organise release windows. This chapter will present the situation in a selection

of countries in the European Union.

4.1. Industry agreements

4.1.1. BE - Belgium

Based on Article 42 of the Decree of the French Community of Belgium on audiovisual

media services,

which specifies that "RTBF (public service broadcaster) and television

service publishers may not broadcast a cinematographic work beyond the deadlines agreed

with the rightsholders", the Concertation Committee of the Cinema and Audiovisual Centre

adopted a Recommendation on 23 March 2012 concerning the exploitation of audiovisual

works in the Federation Wallonia-Brussels (CFWB).

The Recommendation, which applies to fiction and has no enforcement

mechanisms, provides for the following release windows:

 TVOD (1st window): 8 months, following the end of theatrical exploitation, or at the

same time as DVD or Blu-ray sales in case of DVD or Blu-ray exploitation.

 Pay TV (2nd window) 12 months after theatrical release. This period may be reduced

to 10 months if the work is co-produced by a broadcaster.

It has proved difficult to determine for each EU country the extent to which representatives of interested

parties (producers, distributors, operators) engage in structured negotiations on release windows since the

boundaries between explicit and implicit sectoral agreements are not always easy to draw. However, for most

of the countries, this information has been complemented by information provided by Europa Distribution,

FIAD, IVF and UNIC, through a survey carried out by their members in August 2019 (See table in the annexe).

Arrêté du Gouvernement de la Communauté française portant coordination du décret sur les services de

médias audiovisuels, 26 March 2009, https://www.gallilex.cfwb.be/document/pdf/34341_018.pdf

Recommandation du Comité de concertation du Centre du cinema et de l’audiovisuel du 23/03/2012

relative à l’exploitation des oeuvres audiovisuelles de la Fédération Wallonie-Bruxelles (Recommendation of

the Concertation committee of the cinema and audiovisual center of 23 March 2012 on the exploitation of

audiovisual works of the Wallonia-Brussels Federation).

https://audiovisuel.cfwb.be/fileadmin/sites/sgam/uploads/Ressources/Textes_juridiques/Media/Recommandati

on_chronologie_medias_final_23.03.12.pdf.

No information is available concerning the Flemish community of Belgium.

Usually 3 to 4 months, depending on individual title (see table in the annexe).

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 32



Free TV (“basic linear services”

) (3rd window): this consists in the reopening of the

first two windows and is of an undetermined duration. Co-producing broadcasters

may start exploiting the work 15 days earlier.

 SVOD and free VOD services (4th window): 12 months after the 3rd window. SVOD

services may, by derogation, be able to start exploiting at the same time as the 3rd

window.

At national level – according to a survey of chronology trends in EU member states, carried

out by Europa Distribution, FIAD, IVF and UNIC in August 2019

– as there are no rules in

Belgium, it is the contract that applies. Often, the contract imposes a holdback period on

the French community of Belgium (most probably based on the Recommendation of the

Concerted Committee), while this is not the case for the Flemish community. In practice,

release windows are as follows:

 DVD, Blu-ray, EST/DTO: 3-4 months after theatrical release, depending on

individual title;

 TVOD, pay-per-view: 3-4 months after theatrical release, depending on individual

title;

 pay TV: 7 to 12 months after theatrical release;

 free TV: 19 to 30 months after theatrical release;

 SVOD: 7 to 36 months after theatrical release.

4.1.2. DK - Denmark

An agreement dating from May 2011 between the Danish Cinema Association and the

Association of Danish Film Distributors states that if a Danish feature film has been released

in cinemas, a holdback period of four months from the cinema release/premiere applies

before it can be distributed on DVD or VOD, and of 12 months before it can be shown on

Danish television.

According to Nordisk Films, the following typical release windows usually apply in

practice for feature films released in cinemas:

 DVD, Blu-ray: 4 months after theatrical release;

 pay TV: 12 months after theatrical release;

According to the definition provided in the Recommendation, a “basic linear service” is a linear service

provided free of charge or as part of the sale of a subscription to a basic offer of television services.

See in the annexe.

iMinds (SMIT) study for the European Commission, Annex – Information Sheets for every Member State’s

release window system, op. cit.

Analyse af film-branchens nye forretnings-modeller 2017 (Analysis of the movie industry's new business

models 2017), Danish Film Institute, page 46,

https://www.dfi.dk/files/docs/2018-

02/Analyse_af_filmbranchens%20nye_forretningsmodeller%20%281%29.pdf. See also details in practice in the

annexe.

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 33



free TV: 24 months after theatrical release.

A report by the Danish Film Institute (Det Danske Filminstitut) from February 2018 on

“Media and film policy issues for the period 2019 to 2022”

discusses the need for more

flexibility and a shortening of the holdback periods with a view to matching market reality,

and particularly the changes in audiences’ habits due to digital conversion and the rise of

streaming services. The report notes that, in practice, 93% of cinema tickets are sold within

only six weeks, while smaller films often stay in cinemas for only two to four weeks. In this

context, the four-month holdback period is considered too long for some films which are

no longer available in cinemas and not yet available on a digital platform. Although it

highlights the fact that cinema is a crucial window for all films, including smaller ones, the

report recommends a more flexible and optimised utilisation of windows for films targeting

smaller audiences, in particular through the strengthening of a transaction-based window.

Finally, the report proposes that collaboration be established with the industry in

order to establish a more flexible window structure, in cooperation with the industry, which

would be characterised by four types of cinema distribution and a transition to digital

distribution:

 General cinema distribution: for films with a large audience potential, there should

still be traditional cinema distribution with a four-month holdback period.

 Fast track: for films with less than 10 000 admissions in cinemas, there would be a

holdback period of six to eight weeks.

 Event visioning: for very narrow films with a very limited cinema potential (10 to 30

single views), there would be no requirement for real cinema distribution, and they

could be available within 10 days on TVOD and then SVOD services.

 Emergency Track. Films that do not satisfy the expectations of the theatres should

be made more quickly available on digital platforms. If a Danish film sells very few

tickets right after the premiere, the film should be able to move to the Fast Track

model with a hold-back of 6-8 weeks.

4.1.3. ES - Spain

Until a few years ago, Spanish law

provided for a three-month holdback period from the

first theatrical release before the film could be released on DVD. The holdback period

applied to films that had obtained public funding, with the exception of those that had

earned less than EUR 60 000 at the box office during their first month of theatrical release.

Det Danske Filminstitut Medie- & Filmpolitisk oplæg 2019-2022 (The Danish Film Institute Media and Film

policy issue 2019-2022), February 2018, p. 27,

https://www.dfi.dk/files/docs/2018-03/Medie_og_filmpolitisk_oplaeg_2019_2022_DFI.pdf

Article 22(2)b of Real Decreto 2062/2008, de 12 de diciembre, por el que se desarrolla la Ley 55/2007, de

28 de diciembre, del Cine, https://www.boe.es/buscar/pdf/2009/BOE-A-2009-503-consolidado.pdf

; see also

Enrich, E., Decree on the Cinema Law, IRIS Newsletter 2009-3/13, European Audiovisual Observatory,

Strasbourg,

http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris/2009/3/article13.en.html.

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 34

Although this holdback period was only applicable by law to films that had received public

support, in practice, almost all films complied with this provision under a gentlemen’s

agreement between exhibitors. However, as piracy increased in Spain and became an

economic and political problem for the country, pressure on release windows intensified,

as they were seen as offering an additional benefit to the illegal supply of content, available

earlier. In this context, the Spanish Government decided to abolish them through Royal

Decree 1084/2015 of 4 December, amending Law 55/2007 of 28 December on Cinema.

Today, holdback periods no longer exist by law and anyone could, in theory, release

a film via different media at the same time. However, only very exceptional films have faced

this challenge,

as there is in fact an interprofessional agreement between distributors and

cinema exhibitors that sets a 16-week or 112-day period of exclusivity in cinemas, which

may vary slightly for small distribution companies.

Thus, according to the current practice in Spain, release windows are as follows:

 DVD, Blu-ray, EST/DTO, TVOD, pay-per-view: 4 months (112 days) after theatrical

release;

 pay TV: 7 to 8 months after theatrical release;

 free TV: 12 months after the initial date of exploitation on pay TV;

 SVOD: 7 to 8 months after theatrical release (in case this is a licence substituting

the traditional pay TV licence) or after the first pay-TV window and/or free-TV

window (depending on the negotiations between the distributor and the licensee).

The 112-day holdback period is currently being questioned by some VOD services, who

consider that more flexible holdback periods would benefit films by using the media

exposure obtained through their theatrical release for their exploitation on online services

such as Movistar, Filmin, iTunes, Rakuten TV, Netflix and HBO, among others, and could

also have an impact on piracy.

Real Decreto 1084/2015, de 4 de diciembre, por el que se desarrolla la Ley 55/2007, de 28 de diciembre,

del Cine, https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2015-13207

For example, the film “Carmina or revienta” (2012) by Paco León, the distribution of which skipped the – by

then legal – release windows system, premiering simultaneously in theatres, on DVDs and on the Internet.

“Los 112 dias que dividen al cine español”, El Pais, 17 June 2018,

https://elpais.com/cultura/2018/06/17/actualidad/1529222591_093786.html

;

https://www.screendaily.com/features/are-much-shorter-theatrical-windows-around-the-

corner/5112398.article.

See details in practice in the annexe.

See in the annexe. See also Screendaily "Are much shorter theatrical windows around the corner?”, 2

January 2017,

https://www.screendaily.com/features/are-much-shorter-theatrical-windows-around-the-

corner/5112398.article.

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 35

4.2. Free contracts: the example of the United Kingdom

Under the Film Export scheme of the British Film Institute (BFI), films are only required to

be intended for theatrical release. But apart from this, there are no specific requirements

regarding theatrical release, performance and visibility on VOD or any release window to

be respected.

Although there seems to be a traditional 16-week theatrical window policy,

in practice, individual negotiations are key in the United Kingdom.

According to a survey of chronology trends in EU member states, carried out by

Europa Distribution, FIAD, IVF and UNIC in August 2019, the practice is as follows:

 DVD, Blu-ray: 4 months after theatrical release (for limited releases, occasionally 1

to 2 months).

 EST/DTO: generally, day and date release or 2 weeks prior to physical release (3

weeks in a few cases). Occasionally 2 months from theatrical release or 1 to 2 weeks

earlier than that in some cases.

 TVOD: generally, day and date release with physical release. Occasionally, 2 months

from theatrical release (and sometimes PVOD (“Premium Video On Demand”) day-

and-date with theatrical release).

 Pay-per-view: day-and-date with physical release; 4 months generally; occasionally

2 months from theatrical release.

 Pay TV, SVOD: Varies from 4 to 6 months from theatrical release Regarding SVOD,

in some instances from 7 months on, depending on individual contractual

arrangements on a title-by-title basis.

 Free TV: starts after the pay-TV first window has ended. If there is no pay-TV, 12

months from theatrical release is usual. In any case, no later than 27 months from

theatrical release.

The trend in the United Kingdom is also towards shorter windows. This is especially so for

the United Kingdom’s indie cinema circuit, which has been working with shorter windows

and simultaneous releases for years, as they look to boost revenues for indie titles that

struggle to get significant play in cinemas. In particular, this has been done for films that

are unlikely to stay in cinemas for longer than a few weeks and thus are reliant on money

made from ancillary revenue streams.

See "Mapping of film and audiovisual public funding criteria in the EU”, European Audiovisual Observatory,

p. 328, op. cit.

See ScreenDaily, “UK's Picturehouse Cinemas introduces strict theatrical windows policy (update)”, 6 March

2019,

https://www.screendaily.com/news/uks-picturehouse-cinemas-introduces-strict-theatrical-windows-

policy-update/5137404.article.

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 36

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 37

5. Case law

5.1. European Union

5.1.1. CJEU

In its Cinéthèque case

of 11 May 1985, the Court of Justice of the European Union (at the

time, the European Court of Justice) had to decide on the interpretation of Articles 30, 34,

36 and 59 of the EEC Treaty with a view to enabling the Tribunal de Grande Instance of

Paris to determine their compatibility with the provisions of French legislation concerning

the exploitation in the form of video cassettes and video discs of films distributed

simultaneously in cinemas.

Article 89 of Act No. 82-652 of 29 July 1982 on Audiovisual Communication

provided that no cinematographic work shown in cinemas may simultaneously be exploited

in the form of recordings intended for sale or hire for the private use of the public, in

particular in the form of video cassettes or video discs, before the expiration of a period of

between six and 18 months, to be determined by decree. It also provided that the period

was to run from the granting of the performance certificate and that it could be waived on

conditions to be determined by decree. The interval provided for was fixed at one year by

Decree No. 83-4 of 4 January 1983.

The chronological order for the showing of films was

thus as follows: first in cinemas, then on video cassettes and video discs and finally on

television. Despite this, the minister for culture had the power to waive the period of one

year acting upon the opinion of a committee composed of eight members, including two

members representing video cassette and video disc producers. A dispensation could be

granted in the light of the results of the commercial exploitation of the cinematographic

work in cinemas.

The Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris referred to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling

in the two cases in order to determine whether the abovementioned provisions of French

law were compatible with the provisions of Articles 30 and 34 of the EEC Treaty on the free

movement of goods, with Article 59 of the EEC Treaty on freedom to provide services and

Judgment of the Court of 11 July 1985 - Cinéthèque SA and others v Fédération nationale des cinémas

français. Joined cases 60 and 61/84,

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:61984CJ0060&from=FR

Loi n° 82-652 du 29 juillet 1982 sur la communication audiovisuelle. A consolidated version up to 03 May

1985 is available (in French) at:

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006068759&dateTexte=19850503

Décret n° 83-4 du 4 janvier 1983 portant application des dispositions de l'article 89 de la loi n° 82-652 du

29 juillet 1982 sur la communication audiovisuelle,

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000858045&categorieLien=id

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 38

with Article 36 of the EEC Treaty laying down derogations from Articles 30 and 34 of the

EEC Treaty.

The dispute between the parties centred on the effect of the national legislation in

question on the imports of video cassettes and on the marketing of imported video

cassettes in the national territory. The French Government stated that the prohibition laid

down by French law did not extend to exports of video cassettes since the specific purpose

of the law was not frustrated if video cassettes of films shown in cinemas in France were

exported to other member states.

The plaintiffs and the interveners emphasised that legislation of the type applied in

France had the effect of restricting intra-community trade since its application prevented

certain products from being made available for sale in the national territory even though

they could circulate freely in the territories of other member states.

The defendant in the main proceedings contended that the legislation in question

applied to imported and national products alike, that it was adopted in the absence of

community legislation in a field falling within the exclusive competence of the member

states, and that it was justified by the mandatory requirements of general interest, namely

the protection of the cinema as a means of cultural expression, which was necessary in

view of the rapid development of other modes of film distribution .The French Government

adopted a similar point of view, observing that the legislation in question formed part of a

body of rules intended to establish a chronological order between the different methods of

exploiting a cinematographic work in order to ensure priority for its exploitation in cinemas.

Such an arrangement was necessary in order to ensure the continued creation of

cinematographic works since their exploitation in cinemas produced the bulk of their

revenue (80%) and income from other forms of exploitation was at the time very small. The

French Government added that a system of self-regulation would not have been able to

meet the growing power of the video industry or the risk of the development of such an

imbalance in contractual relations that the contract could no longer have a regulatory

effect.

The Commission stated that the national legislation in question undeniably had the

effect of hindering the imports of video recordings lawfully produced and marketed in

another member state and in free circulation there, and the possibility of obtaining

exemption on the basis of the aforementioned decree of 4 January 1983 was not capable

of affecting that fact. However, cultural aims could justify certain restrictions on the free

movement of goods, provided that those restrictions applied to national and imported

products without distinction, that they were appropriate to the cultural aim which was

being pursued and that they constituted the means of achieving them which least affected

intra-community trade.

The CJEU observed that such a system, if it applied without distinction to both video

cassettes manufactured in the national territory and to imported video cassettes, did not

have the purpose of regulating trade patterns; its effect was not to favour national

production over the production of other member states, but to encourage cinematographic

production as such. Nevertheless, the application of such a system could create barriers to

intra-community trade in video cassettes because of the disparities between the systems

operated in the different member states and between the conditions for the release of

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 39

cinematographic works in the cinemas of those states. In those circumstances, a prohibition

of exploitation laid down by such a system is not compatible with the principle of the free

movement of goods provided for in the treaty unless any obstacle to intra-community trade

thereby created does not exceed that which is necessary in order to ensure the attainment

of the objective in view and unless that objective is justified with regard to Community law.

In the case at hand, the French system was justified because it aimed at encouraging the

creation of cinematographic works, irrespective of their origin, by giving priority, for a

limited initial period, to the distribution of such works through the cinema.

The CJEU concluded that Article 30 of the EEC Treaty did not apply to national

legislation which regulated the distribution of cinematographic works by imposing an

interval between one mode of distributing such works and another by prohibiting their

simultaneous exploitation in cinemas and in video cassette form for a limited period,

provided that the prohibition applied to domestically produced and imported cassettes

alike and that any barriers to intra-community trade to which its implementation may give

rise do not exceed what is necessary for ensuring that the exploitation in cinemas of

cinematographic works of all origins retains priority over other means of distribution.

Concerning the issue of whether the French system was in breach of the principle of

freedom of expression as recognised by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human

Rights (ECHR) for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms and was

therefore incompatible with Community law, the CJEU admitted that it was its duty to

ensure observance of fundamental rights in the field of Community law, but it had no power

to examine the compatibility with the ECHR of national legislation which concerns, as in

this case, an area which falls within the jurisdiction of the national legislator.

5.1.2. Decisions of the European Commission

In the Nederlandse Federatie voor Cinematografie case,

an industry agreement of 1992,

signed by almost all Dutch cinema producers, distributors and operators, prohibited the

simultaneous exhibition of films in cinemas and videos within certain time limits

("Windows"). Under the terms of the agreement, each film was first to be provided to

commercial cinemas and then, after six months, to be available for distribution in the form

of videos and in art cinemas. At the end of 12 to 21 months, the film was to become

available for pay-TV distribution. After 24 months, the film would be available for

distribution on free television. The contract also provided for possible derogations on a

case-by-case basis. Art films were subject to a fairly similar regime (with the exception of

a clause imposing minimum prices).

According to the parties, this agreement did not restrict competition. It simply

delayed competition between different exploitation modes. The result was therefore the

Decision of the European Commission, Nederlandse Federatie voor Cinematografie, Case 34.927, closed by

comfort letter of 30 August 1995. The decision is not available online but it is described (in French) in the

European Commission’s contribution to OCDE’s paper on Competition Policy and film distribution,

OCDE/GD(96)60, 1996, https://one.oecd.org/document/OCDE/GD(96)60/en/pdf

, see pages 62-63.

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 40

sequencing - not the elimination - of competition over time. Moreover, according to the

parties, the agreement had no impact on intra-Community trade.

The Commission did not agree with this conclusion and considered that the

agreement did restrict competition since the distributors refrained from competing on the

different exploitation windows simultaneously. The agreement would also have an effect

on intra-Community trade because the majority of films distributed were of foreign origin

in the country in question. Finally, the fixing of minimum prices for art films clearly

constituted a restriction of competition. Despite these restrictions on competition, the

Commission considered that, pursuant to Article 85(3) EC Treaty (currently Article 101(3)

TFEU), an exemption could apply to the agreement. The reasons for this exemption were

threefold. Firstly, it ultimately achieved the same result as the regulatory solution in force

in other member states applicable to the issue of media chronology. Moreover, the

Television without Frontiers Directive contained similar rules. In addition, the CJEU had

already endorsed the principle of a media chronology in the Cinémathèque case mentioned

above. Secondly, the NFC agreement made it possible to maximise cinema revenues, thus

freeing up funding for the film industry, and ultimately stimulating film production. Finally,

the agreement made it possible to maintain a privileged link between the cinema

(guaranteed to benefit from the first release of the films) and the viewer.

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 41

6. State of play

As highlighted in Chapter 3, legislation and industry agreements in several countries are

currently being reviewed in order to match current shifts in the market and to allow more

flexibility and freedom for contractual agreement.

Meanwhile, some stakeholders

maintain the same position as in the earlier years that saw the emergence of VOD services,

that is, by insisting on preserving certain windows, and in particular the theatrical window.

Moreover, under the current shift in the traditional business model, changes in practice

remain subject to the influence of the different groups within the film sector, who, by

extension, have different concerns and interests.

In 2011, the European Commission published a Green Paper on the online

distribution of audiovisual works in the European Union, on the ongoing and upcoming

challenges facing the digital single market.

Looking at the market evolution, it appears

that the overall opinions formulated almost ten years ago by stakeholders from the film

industry still stand today. And yet, it can be argued that the situation in 2019 is radically

different from what it was in 2011.

6.1. The theatrical window, fundamental or obsolete?

As developed in Chapter 1, the economic rationale behind exploitation windows explains

the calls to preserve the theatrical window as the first window for the film industry, a

position that is shared by most stakeholders, in particular distributors, producers and, of

course, by cinema owners.

The International Union of Cinemas (UNIC) views theatrical exhibition as the “key

pillar” of the film industry as it sets the “benchmark for all subsequent methods of

distribution”.

In addition to a wide range of benefits for other commercial activities,

cinema attendance generates higher revenues than other exploitation methods, generating

economic growth, preserving and even creating new working opportunities, and

contributing to supporting artistic and cultural creation through levies that are paid to

national film funds, according to the UNIC’s position paper.

Even in France (where a new regulation was adopted less than a year ago) as suggested in Dominique

Boutonnat’s Report, see Chapter 3.

Koljonen J., Nostradamus Report: Relevance in a New Reality, Göteborg Film Festival, 2019,

https://goteborgfilmfestival.se/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Nostradamus19-digi-2.pdf

European Commission, Green Paper on the online distribution of audiovisual works in the European Union:

opportunities and challenges towards a digital single market,

https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-

detail/-/publication/7ec0fa4a-3983-4b25-881e-4add98b3057c/language-en.

UNIC’s Annual report 2018, p. 15,

https://www.unic-cinemas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/wordpress-uploads/2017/06/UNIC_AR2018_online.pdf

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 42

The same view is shared by the International Federation of Film Distributors'

Associations (FIAD). The current business model based on exclusive release windows is

essential to ensuring the efficient distribution of films and increasing their chances of

commercial success in other exploitation channels.

Thus, the theatrical window and, by

extension, potential success in cinemas, has “important spill-over effects on the following

windows”. Therefore, any changes affecting media chronology are feared to have negative

consequences for cinematographic distribution and for the industry as a whole.

As far as the Federation of European Film Directors (FERA) is concerned,

100

exploitation windows allow producers to finance their works through pre-sales by selling

exploitation rights within the various distribution channels. Additionally, FERA also links a

work’s success in subsequent distribution windows to its initial theatrical release.

It is hardly surprising that Netflix does not share this position. Speaking at the UBS

Global Media and Communication Conference in New York (via the website Deadline.com),

Netflix’s Chief Content Officer Ted Sarandos considered that release windows “[have]

disconnected people from movies in a way” and doubted that “it’s very consumer-friendly

that consumers who don’t happen to live near a theater are waiting six months, eight

months to see a movie.”

101

Mr Cuarón, the director of Netflix’s film “Roma”, has a similar take on the matter.

According to the Mexican film director, “How many theaters do you think a Mexican film in

black and white, in Spanish that is a drama without stars — how big of release do you think

it will be in a theatrical release?” He also believes that streaming coupled with a limited

theatrical model can “elevate cinema, and more importantly can create a diversity in

cinema.”

102

This view is also shared by the European Consumer Organisation (BEUC), who, as

far back as 2013, believed that “the traditional hierarchy with cinema as the first window”

no longer reflects the market reality, especially “with the emergence of new distribution

channels”, namely SVOD.

103

Thus, it considers chronological release windows to be highly

detrimental to small, low-budget works with limited access to theatres and to means of

promotion. According to BEUC, allowing works to become available shortly after premiering

in theatres is a more promising commercial model.

FIAD’s position on Release windows, https://www.fiad.eu/positions.

100

New market, new deal. Proposals for shared online growth (a Response to the EU Green Paper on Online

Distribution of Audiovisual Works), 2009, p. 16, question 11,

http://www.filmdirectors.eu/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/FERA-Green-Paper-Reply-FINAL-18.11.pdf

101

Indiewire.com, “Ted Sarandos: Theatrical Windows are ‘Disconnecting People from Movies,’ Not Netflix”,

https://www.indiewire.com/2018/12/ted-sarandos-netflix-theatrical-windows-disconnecting-people-from-

movies-1202025231/

102

Deadline.com, “Alfonso Cuarón Champions Netflix Limited Theatrical-Streaming Model As ‘Roma’ Wins Two

Golden Globes”,

https://deadline.com/2019/01/alfonso-cuaron-champions-netflix-streaming-limited-theatrical-model-as-

roma-wins-two-golden-globes-1202529703/.

103

Green paper: Preparing for a fully converged audiovisual world, 2013, p. 6, question 5,

https://www.beuc.eu/publications/2013-00586-01-e.pdf

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 43

6.1.1. Fight or adapt?

In reaction to the evolution of the distribution landscape, some theatrical exhibitors have

taken action in order to preserve theatrical exploitation. In Spain, for example, some film

theatres refused to release Netflix’s Roma due to its short theatrical-exclusive window.

104

Despite the fact that theatrical windows are not regulated in Spain, theatrical exclusivity

remains of “vital importance for the whole industry” and in particular for exhibitors. In the

United Kingdom, Picturehouse, one of the largest independent cinema chains in the

country, issued a statement about its theatrical windows policy,

105

whereby it reiterated its

intention to restrain from showing films that do not respect its holdback policy of a 16-

week gap between theatrical and home entertainment release, stating that “if a film is made

to be shown in cinemas then it should respect a theatrical window”.

But film theatres may not be the ones most impacted by the rise of SVOD. The year

2017 marked the lowest growth rate for pay-TV in the European Union since 2012.

106

the other hand, the pay-services market remains driven by SVOD subscriptions which

accounted for 24% of all pay-services subscriptions, despite a less significant contribution

to growth in terms of revenues due to the gap between subscription costs – pay-TV fees

remain higher. However, if pay-TV revenues did become negatively impacted by the

ongoing trend of SVOD taking over parts of the pay-TV market share, the lucrative licensing

fees charged by producers and studios from pay-TV would potentially be imperilled,

meaning less revenue for producers.

107

6.1.2. Film festivals as battlegrounds?

The mixed reaction to Netflix’s Roma Academy Award distinction, the Cannes Film Festival’s

new rules, as well as the efforts to limit the participation of non-theatrically released works

in the major film festivals might suggest that a cold war, waged against SVOD platforms, is

in the making. Nonetheless, such a war does not seem to be driven by the festivals

themselves but is rather a result of the pressure exerted by exhibitors defending the

traditional release model.

If reports from across the Atlantic about a push for a three-month theatrical window

as a condition to be eligible to compete for the Oscars proves to be true, this could open

the discussion in major European film festivals, including at Cannes, where restrictive

104

Green J., Why the Spanish Film Industry Is Embracing Netflix, The Hollywood Reporter, 3 April 2019,

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/why-spanish-film-industry-is-embracing-netflix-1198145

105

Grater T. UK's Picturehouse Cinemas introduces strict theatrical windows policy (update), Screendaily, 6

March 2019,

https://www.screendaily.com/news/uks-picturehouse-cinemas-introduces-strict-theatrical-

windows-policy-update/5137404.article.

106

European Audiovisual Observatory, Yearbook Key Trends 2018/2019, p. 48,

http://yearbook.obs.coe.int/s/document/key-trends

107

Lang B., Op. Cit.

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 44

measures were adopted.

108

However, in the case of Roma, Netflix was quick to react as it

took the lead and allowed the movie to be screened in hundreds of independent theatres

for months at international level. However, Netflix films remained welcome to screen and

compete at some major European film festivals such as Venice and Berlin, earning the

organisers a wave of criticism.

109

Nevertheless, raising tension about Netflix’s participation

in festivals might just have broken the ice for a potential common understanding between

Europe’s biggest festivals, one way or another.

6.1.3. SVOD’s audience-based strategy

According to European Audiovisual Observatory figures, in 2018, the number of theatrical

admissions in the EU-28 decreased by 2.9% from the previous year.

110

At the same time, the

SVOD market consolidated its position as it grew by 45.7% year over year.

111

Many parallels

were drawn between one market’s success and the other one’s slight decline, as alarmed

voices claimed that multiplexes would go through a difficult time in the years to come,

while predicting a shiny future for home entertainment, and for SVOD in particular.

The success of SVOD services like Netflix and HBO could be explained by their

ability to offer access to diversified catalogues while providing a tailor-made consumer

experience, and all of that at an affordable cost. On the other hand, ticket prices in the

European Union averaged around EUR 7.10 in 2018, which is slightly below the cost of a

monthly subscription to any of the top SVOD services.

112

Middle-class households and young

people, who are mainly students with limited financial resources but who, ironically, are

among the most regular consumers of cultural goods, are more likely to turn to SVOD for

this obvious economical reason — not to mention the personalised experience and access

to a large selection of works from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds, and the

positive impact on the circulation of culture across borders. Last but not least, the

accessibility argument based on the accessibility and portability of SVOD services, which

can be carried and used at any time and from different devices, makes SVOD the equivalent

of an audiovisual works “home delivery” for rural dwellers.

108

Gleiberman O., Steven Spielberg vs. Netflix: A Preview of the War for Cinema’s Future (Column), Variety, 10

March 2019,

https://variety.com/2019/film/columns/steven-spielberg-vs-netflix-a-preview-of-the-war-for-

cinemas-future-1203159522/.

109

Roxborough S. and Richford R., Cannes' Netflix Problem Gets Bigger After Oscar Wins for 'Roma, The

Hollywood Reporter, 1 March 2019,

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/what-roma-oscars-wins-mean-

cannes-netflix-problem-1191665.

110

Kanzler M. and Simone P., European Audiovisual Observatory, Focus 2019 World Film Market Trends.

111

Yearbook Key Trends 2018/2019, Op. Cit., p. 50.

112

Focus 2019 World Film Market Trends, Op. Cit., p. 14.

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 45

6.2. Exploitation windows and the promotion of audiovisual

works

As highlighted in a 2019 research requested by the European Parliament’s CULT committee,

“[t]he influence of TVOD and SVOD services on film distribution, and thus on film financing

in Europe is growing rapidly”. In light of the latest revision of the Audiovisual Media

Services Directive (AVMSD), which envisages a new investment obligation to be imposed

on VOD service providers, aimed at promoting European works, VOD windows will now

matter more than ever.

113

Exploitation windows policies can be put in place in order to promote national and

European film industries. As mentioned earlier, the new French media chronology

regulations include rules that are tailored to drive and promote creation and investment in

French and European works by allowing earlier exploitation windows for services that

commit to supporting the French and European film industries (see Chapter 3). Such a

condition was set in a Report by the French Senate’s Committee on Culture in 2017 as part

of a state strategy to promote national and European works.

114

6.3. Take-aways from the EAO Presidency Conference

Under the Italian Presidency of the Observatory, a conference devoted to “Cinema windows

across Europe” was held in Rome on 17 June 2019. Following up on the introductory

presentations from the Observatory,

115

a panel discussion

116

was held to debate on two

fundamental questions:

a) What are the objectives of release windows?

b) Why is the regulation of windows necessary or useful?

With regard to the first topic, on the objectives of release windows, the opening assumption

was based on the fact that the windows sequence follows the order of the highest revenue

generated over the least amount of time, or the principle of "second-best alternative", from

cinema theatres (in domestic or international release) to their subsequent releases on DVD

113

Directive (EU) 2018/1808 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 amending

Directive 2010/13/EU on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative

action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services

Directive) in view of changing market realities, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2018/1808/oj

114

Blocman A., Media chronology: Senate’s Committee on Culture makes proposals, IRIS 2017-8,

http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris/2017/8/article17.en.html

115

The introductory presentations of Cappello M. “Regulating release windows in Europe” and Fontaine G.

“The economic context for windows in Europe” are available at

https://www.obs.coe.int/en/web/observatoire/-

/conference-cinema-windows-across-europe.

116

Panelists at the Conference were: James Butler (Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, UK), Iole

Maria Giannattasio (DG Cinema – MiBAC, Italy), Jérémie Kessler (Centre national du cinéma et de l'image

animée (CNC), France), Inge Welbergen (Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (MINOWC), Netherlands),

Bruno Zambardino (Istituto Luce Cinecittà c/o DG Cinema – MiBAC, Italy).

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 46

(rental/sales), VOD in its various forms (subscription based, transaction based, or advertising

driven), Pay-per-View, pay-TV on linear services until free-to-air television. Each version is

normally provided exclusively for a limited time period and the purpose is to allow every

version to maximise the revenues derived by the rightsholders. Release windows are

therefore part of the audiovisual sector’s business model and one of the cornerstones of

film financing, as they allow producers to generate turnover from the pre-sales of exclusive

exploitation rights across the different windows.

With this in mind, the panel discussion digged into many questions, such as:

 Does the traditional exploitation model, where the theatrical window comes first,

still make sense today, and is it still fundamental to benefit from a theatrical release

in order to succeed as a film?

 In today’s context, where VOD and streaming platforms are gaining more audience

and some already established studios are turning towards online distribution, is

digital distribution the future of film production?

 What approach should be adopted towards difficult and low-budget works in terms

of release windows?

 Since the user might prefer to be able to watch the film at the time and place (that

is, platform) of his/her choice, to what extent should release windows be flexible?

As for the second topic, concerning the need or usefulness of windows, the discussion

started from the premise that in most European countries, release windows are based on

industry agreements, and tailor-made commercial agreements are often put in place in

order to enable films to maximise their exploitation. Despite all of that, windows are

sometimes brought into question, mainly for hampering competition and for not being in

line with the market reality that digital distribution is gaining more popularity. The

perspective of the user also happens to add further issues to the discussion, especially

considering the different media preferences of users of different age groups.

The panel discussion explored the following aspects:

 Considering that out of 28 EU countries, only a few have chosen to regulate release

windows, while the vast majority prefers to leave it all to industry agreements, the

extent to which state regulation affects the current film distribution structure.

 As some public funding institutions require funded projects to comply with certain

rules regarding release windows, whether there is a need to regulate release

windows from a public funding institution’s point of view.

 Since some users might feel tempted to illegally download a film if s/he cannot go

or does not feel like going to the cinema or waiting until it is available on an online

platform, how windows could be balanced with piracy.

 Whether or not there is room for a minimum level of harmonisation at EU level

regarding release windows.

The audience contributed with interesting insights on issues such as access and inclusion:

if a film is only available from SVOD platforms, wouldn’t this be a potential exclusion factor?

Could public service providers ensure a balancing role in this context?

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 47

The European Audiovisual Observatory obviously does not have an answer to these

questions, but it is almost certain that they will continue to generate lively debate between

those who support release windows and those who do not, in a rapidly evolving audiovisual

context marked by the rise of on-demand audiovisual platforms and the new consumption

habits of viewers.

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 48

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 49

7. Annexe – Survey of chronology trends

in EU member states (August 2019)

117

This table was realised by Europa Distribution, the International Federation of Film Distributors'

Associations (FIAD), the International Video Federation (IVF), and the International Union of Cinemas (UNIC),

based on a survey realised to their members in August 2019, on request of the European Audiovisual

Observatory.

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 50

Country

Theatrical

Release

118

Window 1

Window 2

Window 3

Window 4

Window 5

Comments

Physical

Distribution

(DVD / Blu-ray

(BD))

Online

Distribution

Transactional

(EST/TVOD)

119

Pay-per-View

Pay TV

Online

Distribution

Subscription

(SVOD)

Free TV

Austria

DAY 1

(Possibility to

shorten it to 5

months and in

exceptional

cases to 4

months)

(same as

physical)

(Possibility to

shorten it to 5

months and in

exceptional

cases to 4

months)

(Possibility to

shorten it to 9

and in

exceptional

cases to 6

months)

(Possibility to

shorten it to 12

and in

exceptional

cases to 6

months. If the

broadcaster

contributed

financially very

significantly to

the production

of the film in

exceptional

cases the

window can be

shortened to 4

months.)

These release windows are set

down in the guidelines on film

funding. If the film received film

subsidy they have to be

respected. The law on Film

Funding also points to these

guidelines and sets down as a

general rule that the film

funding guidelines have to set a

minimum 6 months window for

uses other than cinema after the

first theatrical release.

A window reduction is possible

following application by the

producer. (But this possibility is

limited).

118

All subsequent time periods are calculated in months (unless otherwise specified) from the date of theatrical release in the particular territory.

119

TVOD: On-demand content transmission for limited viewing period via DRM technology / No permanent access for the consumer / Content received via live streaming or as

self-erasing download.

EST (Electronic Sell-Thru):On-demand transmission of an AV work in an encoded file for download via DRM technology / Consumer is authorized to have permanent access to

the work (unlimited playback).

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 51

Country

Theatrical

Release

118

Window 1

Window 2

Window 3

Window 4

Window 5

Comments

Physical

Distribution

(DVD / Blu-ray

(BD))

Online

Distribution

Transactional

(EST/TVOD)

119

Pay-per-View Pay TV Online

Distribution

Subscription

(SVOD)

Free TV

Belgium

DAY 1

3-4

Depending on

individual title

3-4 with HD

EST 2 weeks

earlier; TVOD =

3-4 (typically

on 9 months

license)

Depending on

individual title

7-12 (typically

on 12 months

license)

7-36

19-30

Second Pay window = 20-24

(typically 6 months license)

In general BEL follows Dutch

release trends, while for French

movies and/or French speaking

part of BEL French rules will

apply. Trends can vary from

distributor to distributor and/or

from movie to movie.

In the absence of regulation,

individual contracts provide for

holdbacks as a function of the

title concerned.

Bulgaria

DAY 1

4-6

Cyprus

DAY 1

2-3

VOD window is contracting and

some producers have indicated

day-and-date VOD with DVD/BD

in near future.

Czech

Republic

DAY 1

3-6

(same as

physical)

3-6

9-12

12-18

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 52

Country

Theatrical

Release

118

Window 1

Window 2

Window 3

Window 4

Window 5

Comments

Physical

Distribution

(DVD / Blu-ray

(BD))

Online

Distribution

Transactional

(EST/TVOD)

119

Pay-per-View Pay TV Online

Distribution

Subscription

(SVOD)

Free TV

Denmark

DAY 1

3-4

(TVOD normally

same as

physical)

Most

distributors

distinguish

between EST

and TVOD. On

bigger titles,

early release on

EST (up to 10

days prior to

physical release

and 3 weeks

ahead of TVOD)

is sometimes

seen.

This format

does not exist

in the Nordic

countries with

regards to film

– only with

regards to

sports

10-12

12-36

Estonia

DAY 1

3-4

Finland

DAY 1

Same

12-24

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 53

Country

Theatrical

Release

118

Window 1

Window 2

Window 3

Window 4

Window 5

Comments

Physical

Distribution

(DVD / Blu-ray

(BD))

Online

Distribution

Transactional

(EST/TVOD)

119

Pay-per-View Pay TV Online

Distribution

Subscription

(SVOD)

Free TV

France

Legislation

(or 3 if less than

100 000

admissions in 4

weeks and

derogation

asked by

distributor in

5th week of

exploitation)

(or 3 if less than

100 000

admissions in 4

weeks)

Cinema Pay TV

but with the

possibility of a

6 months

period window

only for films

with less than

100 000

admissions: for

1st Pay TV

window

but with the

possibility of a

34 months

period window

only for films

with less than

100 000

admissions

Free-to-air TV

and standard

pay-TV

but with the

possibility of a

20 months

period window

only for films

with less than

100 000

admissions

Since September 2018:

4 months for all films until

release on video & VOD. A

derogation (no longer than 4

weeks) can only be obtained

when the film achieved less

than 100 000 admissions during

the four first weeks of its

theatrical release, which may

concern almost 65 % of the

movies released each year.

Note: the derogation given if the

film has done less than 100000

admissions in its 1st 4 weeks has

consequences for all the windows

when validated : 2 months earlier

for PAY TV, FREE TV, SVOD,

FVOD/AVOD

Public funding can be denied if

release window is not respected.

Germany

Legislation

Day 1

(Possibility to

shorten it to 5

(Possibility to

shorten it to 5

(Possibility to

shorten it to 5

(Possibility to

shorten it to 9,

[Possibility to

shorten it to 12

These minimum periods are laid

down by legislation which is

applicable to productions (film

exceeding 79 min and 59 min

for children films)

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 54

Country

Theatrical

Release

118

Window 1

Window 2

Window 3

Window 4

Window 5

Comments

Physical

Distribution

(DVD / Blu-ray

(BD))

Online

Distribution

Transactional

(EST/TVOD)

119

Pay-per-View Pay TV Online

Distribution

Subscription

(SVOD)

Free TV

or in

exceptional

cases to 4

months)

or in

exceptional

cases to 4

months)

or in

exceptional

cases 4 months)

and in

exceptional

cases to 6

months.)

and in

exceptional

cases to 6

months, in

particular if the

broadcaster has

been involved

in the

production.)

which have received state

subsidy.

A window reduction is possible

following application by the

producer. (But this possibility is

limited – see the information in

brackets)

Greece

DAY 1

2-4

2-3

VOD window is contracting and

some producers have indicated

day-and-date VOD with DVD/BD

in near future.

Hungary

DAY 1

4-6 - 12 24 The trend is towards shorter

windows, especially around

seasonal markets (Christmas,

Easter)

Ireland

DAY 1

SEE UK

Italy

DAY 1

105 days

(blockbuster

titles often 16

weeks )

105 days

(some

producers have

moved to 14

weeks)

105 days

Generally from

6 months after

theatrical

release

Same as PayTV

(6 months)

Between day-

and-date of on-

12 months after

PayTV

A new ministerial decree (soft

law) establishes for Italian films

which have received public

funding a theatrical window of

105 days, reduced to 60 days if

the film does not exceed 50.000

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 55

Country

Theatrical

Release

118

Window 1

Window 2

Window 3

Window 4

Window 5

Comments

Physical

Distribution

(DVD / Blu-ray

(BD))

Online

Distribution

Transactional

(EST/TVOD)

119

Pay-per-View Pay TV Online

Distribution

Subscription

(SVOD)

Free TV

demand and

day-and-date of

Pay TV

depending on

contractual

arrangements

between SVOD

providers and

producers/film

distributors.

admissions in theatres, further

reduced to 10 days if the film

was shown in theatres for only

three days and not during the

weekend.

Latvia

DAY 1

3-4

DVD - films which have received

funding from the National Film

Centre of Latvia= 18

Lithuania

DAY 1

2.5-6

This applies to large

productions, independent

productions are more variable.

No law regulating windows

Luxembourg

DAY 1

DEPENDING ON

RELEASES IN

NEIGHBORING

COUNTRIES

Malta

DAY 1

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 56

Country

Theatrical

Release

118

Window 1

Window 2

Window 3

Window 4

Window 5

Comments

Physical

Distribution

(DVD / Blu-ray

(BD))

Online

Distribution

Transactional

(EST/TVOD)

119

Pay-per-View Pay TV Online

Distribution

Subscription

(SVOD)

Free TV

Netherlands

DAY 1

3-5

3-5 with

HD EST 2 weeks

earlier;

TVOD = 3-4

(typically on 9

months license)

4-6

8-12

(typically on 12

months license)

20-22

Windows generally agreed

between the parties on a case-

by-case basis. Shorter windows

may be agreed for economical

or strategic purposes, e.g. SVOD

after 6 months.

Second Pay window

= 20-24 (typically 6 months

license)

Norway

DAY 1

3-4 months

10-12 months

12-24 months

14-24 months

Poland

DAY 1

3-6

N/A

9-12

18-24

Portugal

DAY 1

3 3 4 6 12 12 As distributors hold “all rights”

there are no mandatory

windows (limited, obviously, by

the contractual holdbacks). The

data uploaded is an “average”

(there can be significant

variations from title to title).

Windows can be reduced upon

negotiation between right

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 57

Country

Theatrical

Release

118

Window 1

Window 2

Window 3

Window 4

Window 5

Comments

Physical

Distribution

(DVD / Blu-ray

(BD))

Online

Distribution

Transactional

(EST/TVOD)

119

Pay-per-View Pay TV Online

Distribution

Subscription

(SVOD)

Free TV

holders and TV/DVD distributors

or in case the TV broadcasters

co-producer of the film.

Romania

DAY 1

6-8

but could be 4

in certain

independent

films cases

6-9

On-Demand

exploitation is

usually via

internet

streaming and

it is held back

between 45-90

days from local

DVD release

date

but contracting

to 8-9 months

from cinema

release

but contracting

to 8-9 months

from cinema

release

strongly

contracting

from 12-24 to

6-8 months

from cinema

release

12-24 from

local theatrical

release date

and 24-36

months from

local theatrical

release for

international

productions

12-24 months

(depending if

PTV+PPV is

exclusively

used - usually

HBO - for 12

months)

Romania is a difficult territory in

terms of exploiting PTV+PPV

and DVD+BR rights. Whenever

there is modest potential for

these forms of exploitation

(such as independent art-house

titles), SVOD and free TV step in

earlier – taking into account

international release patterns.

The main theatrical chain,

Cinema City, has 4 months

exclusivity window before any

other rights usage.

Slovakia

DAY 1

3-4

2-3

VoD window is contracting and

some producers have indicated

day-and-date VOD with physical

in near future.

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 58

Country

Theatrical

Release

118

Window 1

Window 2

Window 3

Window 4

Window 5

Comments

Physical

Distribution

(DVD / Blu-ray

(BD))

Online

Distribution

Transactional

(EST/TVOD)

119

Pay-per-View Pay TV Online

Distribution

Subscription

(SVOD)

Free TV

Slovenia

DAY 1

3-4

(Same as

physical)

18-24

Spain

DAY 1

EST: 4 months

2-3 weeks prior

to DVD/BD

release +

occasionally

day and date

with DVD/BD

release.

TVOD: Day and

date with EST

Day and date

with VOD

7-10

Sometimes

decided on an

individual basis;

some

companies

choose 12-24

months;

7-8 months

after the

theatrical

release date (in

case this is a

License

substituting

traditional Pay

TV license) or

after the first

Pay TV window

and/or Free TV

window

(depending of

the

after the Pay TV

initial date

Release windows are agreed on

a title-by title basis.

Different time periods apply to

films that have received public

funding

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 59

Country

Theatrical

Release

118

Window 1

Window 2

Window 3

Window 4

Window 5

Comments

Physical

Distribution

(DVD / Blu-ray

(BD))

Online

Distribution

Transactional

(EST/TVOD)

119

Pay-per-View Pay TV Online

Distribution

Subscription

(SVOD)

Free TV

negotiations

between

Distributor and

Licensee)

Sweden

DAY 1

122 days

(4 months)

(same as

physical)

N/A 12 24

Switzerland

DAY 1

DVD/BR, VOD, TV: day and date

with France/Italy/Germany

U.K.

DAY 1

(For limited

releases

occasionally

1-2 months)

EST: generally

day and date

release with

physical

or 2- weeks

prior to physical

release (3

weeks in a few

cases)

occasionally 2

months from

theatrical or 1-2

weeks earlier

day-and-date

with physical

generally 4

months,

occasionally 2

months from

theatrical

Varies from 4-6

months from

theatrical

In some

instances from

7 months on

depending on

individual

contractual

arrangements

on a title-by-

title basis

Starts after Pay

TV first window

has ended. If

there is no Pay

TV, 12 months

from theatrical

is usual. In any

case, no later

than 27 months

from theatrical.

Windows are agreed in contracts

between the parties.

RELEASE WINDOWS IN EUROPE: A MATTER OF TIME

Page 60

Country

Theatrical

Release

118

Window 1

Window 2

Window 3

Window 4

Window 5

Comments

Physical

Distribution

(DVD / Blu-ray

(BD))

Online

Distribution

Transactional

(EST/TVOD)

119

Pay-per-View Pay TV Online

Distribution

Subscription

(SVOD)

Free TV

than that in

some cases.

TVOD: generally

day-and-date

with physical

occasionally 2

months from

theatrical (and

sometimes

PVOD day-and-

date with

theatrical)