What Filmmakers Should Know About the Battle Between the US and EU That Can Reshape Cinema

The editing room has always been where filmmakers finalize their vision. Today, however, it’s geopolitical forces wielding the final cut on your creative future. And in his seemingly neverending quest to make life miserable for 99% of the people on the planet, Trump has recently declared tariffs on film that now pose a threat to an already fragile American filmmaking ecosystem. One area of concern is how will American movies be made for the overseas market, particularly in Europe.

What Is AVMSD?

Lately, a battle between US studios and the EU’s Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) has been brewing. “The AVMSD is the key piece of legislation in the field of EU audiovisual policy,” according to the European Union Council (originally introduced in 2010 - dj). “Since its last revision in 2018, the audiovisual and media landscape has changed considerably, due to factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, the increase of disinformation, misinformation, fake news, hate speech and hybrid threats, and the emergence of artificial intelligence.” Because the AVMSD governs EU-wide coordination of national legislation on all audiovisual media, it includes both traditional TV broadcasts and on-demand services. Furthermore, it contains rules for addressing video-sharing platforms like YouTube, Netflix, and Facebook, more flexibility in TV advertising, and stricter rules to protect minors from harmful content, inappropriate advertisements, and misuse of their personal data. These all sound reasonable but US studios are having problems with the AVMSD because it requires that 1) video-on-demand platforms ensure that at least 30% of their catalog consists of European productions and 2) that these productions are given prominence on the platforms.

How Does This Impact U.S. Studios and What is Their Response?

1. Investment Obligations: The directive forces foreign streaming services to invest a portion of their revenues into local productions in European countries. This requirement has been a point of contention for U.S. studios seeking access to a global market beyond these European countries.

2. Lobbying Efforts: The Motion Picture Association (MPA), representing major U.S. studios and streaming services, has been actively lobbying against what they term "disproportionate investment obligations" in countries like France, Germany, and Italy. However, some European filmmakers like Jacques Audiard and Costa-Gavras have chided the Directors Guild of America for siding with the MPA and using the AVMSD as a scapegoat for Trump’s tariffs or the studio’s troubles.

3. Market Access Concerns: U.S. studios are concerned about maintaining their dominant position in the global market. The AVMS directive's requirements for local content and investment potentially reduce the market share and profitability of U.S. content in Europe.

4. Compliance Challenges: The directive creates additional regulatory burdens for U.S. studios operating in Europe, as they must navigate different investment requirements across various European countries.

5. Content Strategy Shifts: To comply with the directive, U.S. studios and streaming platforms may need to adjust their content strategies, potentially increasing investments in European productions or co-productions.

6. Potential for Market Exit: If investment obligations become too onerous, some U.S. studios or streaming services might consider reducing their presence in certain European markets.

THE DIRECTOR’S DILEMMA

As the battle intensifies between American studios and the EU’s Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMS), independent filmmakers may find themselves caught in the crossfire. This isn’t merely corporate posturing—it’s a fundamental restructuring of how films get financed, distributed, and ultimately seen.

The conflict creates a troubling paradox for producers: both sides claim to champion creative expression while simultaneously restricting the very ecosystem producers need to thrive. When studios pressure against investment obligations, they’re fighting requirements that often fund diverse, boundary-pushing independent cinema. Yet when the EU mandates local production quotas, it potentially forces unnatural creative partnerships driven by regulatory compliance rather than authentic storytelling.

PRODUCER CHALLENGES

1. Budget Restructuring Requirements

Producers now face constant budget revisions as investment sources shift. When studios resist EU obligations, previously committed funding evaporates mid-development. Simultaneously, meeting AVMS requirements often means reallocating 20-30% of your budget to satisfy country-specific spending quotas, forcing painful cuts to other production elements.

2. Budget Restructuring Requirements

Producers now face constant budget revisions as investment sources shift. When studios resist EU obligations, previously committed funding evaporates mid-development. Simultaneously, meeting AVMS requirements often means reallocating 20-30% of your budget to satisfy country-specific spending quotas, forcing painful cuts to other production elements.

3. Artificial Casting Constraints

Your casting decisions are increasingly dictated by regulatory checkboxes rather than narrative needs. Studios demand internationally recognizable talent to offset potential market restrictions, while EU quotas require specific percentages of local talent—creating contradictory demands that compromise your creative vision and inflate costs.

4. Production Timeline Disruptions

Regulatory uncertainty extends production timelines possibly up to 3-6 months. Projects stall during critical financing stages as potential partners await policy clarification. These delays cascade through your entire slate, threatening the viability of future productions and creating cash flow crises for production companies.

5. Distribution Deal Complexity

Standard distribution agreements now contain extensive contingency clauses addressing potential regulatory changes. What could be a 30-page contract now becomes 75 pages, requiring specialized legal expertise and introducing new points of negotiation that can derail otherwise promising distribution opportunities.

6. Co-Production Relationship Management

Managing international co-productions has transformed from a creative opportunity to a regulatory necessity. Producers must navigate partner relationships where power dynamics are dictated not by creative contribution but by regulatory leverage, creating tension that frequently compromises the final product.

U.S. Producers in Europe: PREPARe YOUR PRODUCTION STRATEGY

1. Strategic Co-Productions

Develop partnerships that satisfy regulatory requirements while maintaining creative authenticity. Identify European collaborators whose artistic vision genuinely complements yours—forced marriages rarely produce compelling cinema.

2. Distribution Flexibility

Build distribution strategies with multiple contingency plans. The landscape will continue shifting; your distribution approach must be adaptable to emerging realities in both markets.

3. Funding Diversification

Reduce dependence on any single funding mechanism tied exclusively to either US studio backing or EU directive-driven investment. Cultivate relationships with independent financiers who value your creative vision regardless of regulatory environment.

4. Content Rights Strategy

Protect your intellectual property by carefully structuring agreements that preserve your rights across evolving regulatory frameworks. The value of your content may shift dramatically between territories.

ASSESSING THE PREFERABLE OUTCOME

The uncomfortable truth? Neither extreme serves the independent producer’s ultimate goal — creating meaningful cinema with global impact.

The studios’ unfettered access model historically provided international distribution but concentrated power in few hands. The AVMS directive has moral standing and creates funding opportunities but risks fragmentation and potentially forces artificial creative decisions to satisfy quotas.

The preferable outcome lies in the middle ground: regulations that encourage authentic cultural exchange and protects vulnerable individuals without restricting the free flow of creativity. In an ideal world, filmmakers would get a framework that:

• Values artistic merit over arbitrary origin requirements

• Provides sustainable funding without excessive corporate control

• Ensures broad distribution access while protecting creator rights

• Supports authentic representation without mandating specific content formulas

THE FILMMAKER’S PATH FORWARD

While policymakers and executives battle, your responsibility remains to your vision. Your power comes from understanding this landscape with its obstacles requires you to adapt and navigate it in new, creative, and efficient ways. The most successful independent producers emerging from this conflict will be those who have the most money to pad risks or those who can figure out how to adapt without compromising.

*******

🎬 Let Me Help You On Your Next Masterpiece 🎬

Want help on how to navigate these complex regulations while keeping your creative vision intact. Contact me to develop a production framework that turns regulatory hurdles into strategic advantages for your next film:

www.djimlaw.com/contactme

Alarm Bells for Creators: US Copyright Office AI Report and Leadership Shakeup

The recent developments at the US Copyright Office have sent shockwaves through the creative industries, raising serious concerns about the future of intellectual property rights and the creative landscape. Two major events have unfolded that demand immediate attention from creators in the music, film, and book industries.

1. US Copyright Office AI Report: A Double-Edged Sword

The US Copyright Office has released a pre-publication version of its highly anticipated report on AI and fair use. This report, the third part of a comprehensive AI study, examines the legal implications of using copyrighted works to train generative AI models.

Key findings and implications:

a) Fair Use and Market Impact: The report introduces an expansive interpretation of the fourth fair use factor, identifying three categories of potential market harm caused by generative AI training:

• Lost licensing opportunities

• Lost sales

• Market dilution

The concept of "market dilution" is particularly noteworthy, as it suggests that the sheer volume of AI-generated content could potentially diminish the value of original works.

b) Human Authorship: The report reiterates the Copyright Office's stance on the necessity of human authorship for copyright protection. Works entirely generated by AI are not copyrightable, while those involving human creativity in conjunction with AI tools may be eligible for protection.

c) Prompts and Copyrightability: The mere use of prompts, even if detailed, does not yield copyrightable work. This position challenges the notion that extensive prompt engineering could be a basis for copyright claims. For a more thorough analysis of the report, I recommend reading this article at Copyright Lately by Aaron Moss: (Click HERE).

2. Leadership Shakeup: A Threat to Copyright Stability

In a sudden and unprecedented move, for reasons that seem sinister, the Trump administration has fired both Dr. Carla Hayden, the Librarian of Congress, and Shira Perlmutter, the Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office.

Implications for creators:

a) Policy Uncertainty: The abrupt removal of these key figures introduces significant uncertainty regarding the future direction of copyright policy and enforcement.

b) Potential Policy Shifts: There are concerns that these firings may lead to a reversal or modification of recent copyright policies, particularly those related to AI and creative works.

c) Disruption of Ongoing Initiatives: The leadership change may disrupt or delay important copyright initiatives and studies, potentially affecting creators' rights and protections.

Short-term and Long-term Consequences:

• Short-term:

  • Increased uncertainty in copyright registration and enforcement processes

  • Potential delays in addressing emerging copyright issues, particularly those related to AI

  • Confusion among creators about the status of recent copyright guidance and policies

• Long-term:

  • Possible shifts in copyright policy that could fundamentally alter the landscape for creators

  • Potential weakening of copyright protections if new leadership adopts more lenient policies towards AI-generated content

  • Uncertainty in international copyright negotiations and agreements

Call to Action for Creators:

1. Stay Informed: Regularly check updates from reputable copyright law sources and industry associations.

2. Document Your Creative Process: In light of the emphasis on human authorship, maintain detailed records of your creative process, especially when using AI tools.

3. Review Contracts: Ensure your contracts address potential AI-related copyright issues and include provisions for protecting your work from unauthorized AI training.

4. Advocate: Join or support organizations that advocate for creators' rights, such as:

   • The Creators Guild of America (https://creatorsguildofamerica.org/)

   • The Authors Guild (https://www.authorsguild.org/)

   • The Digital Creators Coalition (https://www.digitalcreatorscoalition.org/)

   • The Recording Academy (https://www.grammy.com/recording-academy)

   • The Directors Guild of America (https://www.dga.org/)

5. Engage with Policymakers: Write to your representatives expressing your concerns about copyright protection in the age of AI.

6. Collaborate and Share Knowledge: Engage with fellow creators to share experiences and strategies for navigating these changes.

The creative landscape is at a critical juncture. As creators, your voices and actions are crucial in shaping the future of copyright law and ensuring that your rights are protected in this rapidly evolving digital age. Stay vigilant, stay informed, and most importantly, continue creating while advocating for your rights.

*******

🔒 Ready to Secure Your Creative Rights? 🔒

Take the first step towards ironclad protection for your work. Click here to schedule a consultation and let's craft a robust strategy tailored to your unique needs:

www.djimlaw.com/contactme

Lights, Camera, Legal Action: How Filmmakers Shield Their Documentaries from Big-Name Lawsuits

Picture this: You're a filmmaker with a hot story about a famous billionaire, but you're worried he might sue you for telling it. Sound familiar? That's exactly what's happening with "Tesla Files," a new documentary about Elon Musk's jump into politics as reported in Variety.

A provocative documentary titled "Tesla Files" is set to expose the alleged dangers of Elon Musk's growing political influence. Produced by Germany's Beetz Brothers and directed by Andreas Pichler, the film draws from 100GB of leaked internal data provided by a former Tesla employee, Lukasz Krupski. The documentary explores Musk's transformation from tech entrepreneur to political strategist, shares personal stories of victims affected by Tesla's autopilot technology, and investigates alleged cover-ups and regulatory evasion. With Musk's recent appointment as Senior Advisor to the president, the film aims to scrutinize the potential consequences of his expanded influence on government policies. "Tesla Files" will be previewed as a work-in-progress at the CPH:DOX international documentary festival in Copenhagen, promising a timely examination of the intersection between technology, politics, and corporate power.

I don’t know what will happen next and if Musk will sue but this story seems like a perfect example of the legal tightrope documentary makers walk when they tackle powerful subjects. So let’s break down the "Tesla Files" situation in a way that's easy to understand, even if you're not a law expert. We'll look at:

1. What kind of legal trouble the filmmakers might face

2. How they can protect themselves

3. Why this matters to anyone who wants to make documentaries or tell important stories

Whether you're dreaming of making your own documentaries someday or just curious about how the pros do it, this guide will give you the inside scoop on keeping your film legally safe while still telling the truth. Let's dive in and see how filmmakers can stand up to even the biggest names in the world!

What If? Musk vs. "Tesla Files"

Imagine you're in the filmmaker's shoes. You've got this explosive story about Elon Musk, but you know he's got an army of lawyers. What could he throw at you? Here are the main legal “punches” or claims Musk might try to throw at these filmmakers (in the United States, specifically):

1. Defamation

This is the big one. If Musk thinks the film is telling lies that hurt his reputation, he could sue for defamation. As it stands, the documentary aims to "expose the alleged danger of Elon Musk's political influence" and questions his motives for entering politics. Musk will likely claim that it contains false statements that harm Musk's reputation.

Key elements Musk would need to prove defamation:

• a) False statements of fact (not opinion)

• b) Publication to third parties

• c) Fault amounting to at least negligence

• d) Harm to reputation

2. Invasion of Privacy

If the documentary uses private information or footage without consent, Musk could claim invasion of privacy. This is particularly relevant given the film's use of leaked internal data.

3. Breach of Confidentiality

Basically, spilling the tea without permission. The documentary relies on information from whistleblowers and leaked data. Musk could argue that these sources breached confidentiality agreements, and the filmmakers induced or benefited from these breaches.

4. Copyright Infringement

If the documentary uses Tesla's proprietary materials without permission, Musk could pursue copyright claims.

5. Tortious Interference

If the film hurts Tesla’s reputation, Musk might claim the documentary interferes with Tesla's business relationships by damaging the company's reputation.

Filmmakers' Defense Playbook

Now, how would the filmmakers avoid getting knocked out by these legal punches? Here's their game plan:

1. Truth

The most robust defense against defamation is truth. If the filmmakers can prove their statements are substantially true, they have a strong defense.

2. Fair Report Privilege

If the documentary accurately reports on official government proceedings or documents related to investigations into Tesla or Musk, they may be protected by the fair report privilege.

3. Opinion and Rhetorical Hyperbole

Statements of opinion or rhetorical hyperbole are generally protected from defamation claims. The filmmakers could argue that certain statements are clearly opinion or not meant to be taken as literal fact.

4. Public Figure Doctrine

As a public figure, Musk would need to prove "actual malice" - that the filmmakers knew their statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. It’s harder to do than it sounds so this higher standard provides significant protection for the filmmakers.

5. Newsworthiness and Public Interest

Courts often provide broader protections for speech on matters of public concern. The filmmakers could argue that Musk's political influence and Tesla's business practices are newsworthy topics of significant public interest.

6. First Amendment Protection

The filmmakers can invoke their First Amendment rights to free speech and press, which courts generally interpret broadly, especially for documentaries on public issues.

7. Journalistic Practices

By adhering to rigorous journalistic standards, including fact-checking, seeking multiple sources, and offering Musk an opportunity to respond, the filmmakers can strengthen their defense against defamation claims.

How Filmmakers Should Protect Themselves and their work

So, you want to make sure your hard work doesn't get shut down by a lawsuit? Here's how filmmakers, like you, can protect themselves:

1. Double-Check Everything

Implement a rigorous fact-checking process to verify all claims made in the documentary. Document sources and maintain detailed records of research and interviews.

2. Get a Legal Look

Have experienced media attorneys look at it and prepare a comprehensive pre-release risk assessment to identify and address potential legal issues.

3. Fair and Balanced Reporting

Strive for a fair and accurate portrayal of events and individuals. Include multiple perspectives and offer Musk and Tesla representatives opportunities to respond to allegations.

4. Provide Clear Disclaimers

Use clear disclaimers (or label your opinions) to distinguish between factual statements and opinions or speculation.

5. Get Permission

Obtain proper releases and consent from all individuals featured in the documentary, especially for any sensitive or potentially private information.

6. Protect Your Sources

Implement strong measures to protect confidential sources, including whistleblowers, to avoid potential legal issues related to breaches of confidentiality.

7. Watch Out For Copyrights

Ensure all materials used in the documentary are either original, properly licensed, or fall under fair use doctrine.

8. Get Insurance

Obtain errors and omissions (E&O) insurance to provide financial protection in case of legal action.

Why This Matters

Understanding all this legal stuff isn't just for big-time filmmakers. It's important for anyone who wants to tell true stories, whether it's through videos, writing, or even social media. Knowing how to protect yourself while speaking truth to power is a skill that's becoming more important every day.

The "Tesla Files" case shows us that even when you're up against one of the most powerful people in the world, you can still tell important stories. By following these guidelines, filmmakers (and maybe you someday!) can shine a light on important issues without fear.

---

🎥 Ready to Safeguard Your FILMMAKING Masterpiece? 🎥

Don't let legal complexities cut your film short. As a seasoned entertainment attorney, I'm here to empower your vision and shield your cinematic labors.

🔹 Schedule a Strategy Session: Let's dissect your project's unique challenges and craft an ironclad legal strategy. Click HERE to schedule a session.

🔹 Fortify Your Film: Ensure your film is armored against industry pitfalls, from copyright issues to defamation claims.

🔹 Master the Art of Negotiation: Arm yourself with expert advice for distribution deals, licensing agreements, and more.

Remember, in the world of filmmaking, your greatest ally is a knowledgeable legal partner. Don't leave your artistic legacy to chance. Your film deserves more than just to be made; it deserves to make waves.

Actionable Tips for TV and Filmmaking Clients: Lessons from "The Pitt" Lawsuit

The recent legal battle between Warner Bros. Television and Michael Crichton's estate over "The Pitt" offers valuable insights for writers, tv show creators, and producers. Here are key takeaways and actionable tips:

• Protect Your Intellectual Property

Tip: Always keep in mind the need to secure comprehensive rights agreements that cover potential FUTURE productions, spin-offs, or reboots.

The Crichton estate's "frozen rights" provision demonstrates the importance of forward-thinking contracts. Ensure your agreements include clauses that protect your creative works from unauthorized adaptations or derivatives.

• Be Wary of Look-Alike Productions

Tip: Monitor or hire a lawyer or company to monitor industry developments closely for potential infringements on your intellectual property.

The similarities between "ER" and "The Pitt" raised red flags. Stay vigilant about new productions that bear striking resemblances to your work, especially when they involve the same creative team or network.

• Document All Negotiations

Tip: Maintain detailed records of all discussions, offers, and agreements related to your intellectual property.

The court noted the "timeline of various communications and events" in this case. Thorough documentation can be crucial evidence if legal disputes arise.

• Be Prepared for Anti-SLAPP Motions

Tip: Ensure your claims are well-substantiated before filing a lawsuit to withstand potential dismissal attempts.

Warner Bros. tried to dismiss the lawsuit on free speech grounds, likely through an anti-SLAPP motion. Build a strong case that can survive such challenges.

• Stay Informed About Industry Practices

Tip: Keep abreast of how studios and networks are handling reboots, revivals, and spin-offs of popular franchises.

Understanding current trends in how intellectual property is being leveraged can help you anticipate potential issues and negotiate more effectively.

• Be Cautious of Repackaging Attempts

Tip: Watch for attempts to circumvent your rights by repackaging familiar concepts under new names.

The alleged "pattern of conduct" by the studio to circumvent Crichton's rights serves as a warning. Be alert to subtle attempts to exploit your intellectual property.

By watching industry practices, studying cases like this, and implementing these actionable tips, tv and filmmaking clients can better protect their creative works, navigate complex negotiations, and maintain control over their intellectual property in an ever-evolving industry landscape.

The entertainment industry is a complex labyrinth of legal challenges, but you don't have to navigate it alone. ---

🎬 Ready to Protect Your Creative Legacy? 🎬

Don't let legal complexities dim your spotlight. As an entertainment law expert, I'm here to empower your vision and shield your artistic endeavors.

🔹 Schedule a Consultation: Let's discuss your unique challenges and craft a bespoke legal strategy. Click HERE to get started.

🔹 Protect Your IP: Ensure your creative works are fortified against industry pitfalls.

🔹 Navigate Negotiations: Arm yourself with expert advice for your next big deal.

---