The last legislature radically transformed the French and European audiovisual landscape. What are your expectations of the new European Parliament?

Emma Rafowicz: We must understand that we are in a particularly unique political moment. Our primary goal will be to fight the far right and its reactionary vision of culture, as well as the right and its liberal approach. These two battles will drive our actions. But this commitment won't be just defensive. As vice-chair of the CULT Committee in the European Parliament, I will fight—alongside other MEPs—to go further than the achievements of previous terms, such as the Copyright and Audiovisual Media Services (AVMS) directives.

However, we also need to take a combative stance: if we only “defend,” we risk losing progress. I’ll advocate for new ambitions: promoting and defending the European cultural exception, freedom of creation, and protecting authors from market pressures and far-right censorship threats. We need to establish new regulations to protect the sector. Through this mandate, in close connection with cultural stakeholders, we want to be proactive while safeguarding past gains. To succeed, we will need the support of professionals.

Radu Mihaileanu: In this new legislative cycle, we want to continue building a real cultural policy. Europe’s greatest strength lies in its creative diversity. We may be lagging in technology, but when it comes to the richness and variety of our works, we are the strongest in the world. We hope for a true cultural policy that translates into concrete actions and defends Europe’s key values: moral rights, diversity, and the cultural exception. These values are regularly threatened by the US and China. We’re not opposed to technological developments that help distribute our works. But within European institutions, there is confusion between regulation to protect creativity and regulation to serve technology. These are different approaches. Years ago, the transfer of cinema and audiovisual matters to the Internal Market and DG Connect fostered this confusion. Institutions have redefined cultural activity—cinema and audiovisual—as purely industrial and technological.

E. R: I agree with your observations, but I don’t think it’s just about confusion or ignorance. These are political choices—ones that prioritize immediate economic gain over cultural diversity. It’s our role to carry forward a message of creative freedom and variety. The EU’s motto, “United in diversity,” should be reflected in its actions. Europe is facing major economic and democratic challenges. Against pressure from the US, China, or Russia, we must fight real cultural battles. This is not naïve idealism; it’s a strategic imperative for our citizens.

Agnieszka Holland: We’ve already lost some battles. We hope the new Commission will bring renewed momentum. The threats are very real—especially to freedom of expression and European cultural solidarity. Far-right and populist parties oppose European culture. They promote exclusive, nationalist, territorial models. Freedom of expression has no place there; censorship is favored. We’ve seen it in Poland, and now in Hungary and Slovakia. Public media have become tools of propaganda. Neoliberalism within the European Commission is also dangerous—market value matters more than universal principles. When cinema and audiovisual issues were placed under the internal market, our influence diminished. We are overshadowed by powerful lobbyists and American corporate interests. We must reorganize the Commission’s responsibilities. The CULT Committee must regain its central role. As Radu said, creation is our strongest asset. Audiovisual media is a powerful vehicle for ideas. Politicians must defend legislation that protects our system—and create new laws to meet modern challenges.

R. M: Besides populists and extremists, neoliberalism is a real threat. Many only consider the material value of culture. Yet the cultural exception, adopted by the EU in 1994, excluded our sector from WTO and OECD market rules. Now, using Article 114 of the internal market, some politicians want to dismantle that exception. That would be disastrous for all EU member states. Removing the exception means each country loses the ability to shape its cultural policy—leaving the field open to American and Chinese influence. Our European cultural catalogs are priceless. If we drop these safeguards, our imagination will no longer be ours—it will belong to someone else. Our youth would adopt someone else’s identity. Similarly, if geoblocking is abolished, the loss of revenue from exports and co-productions will be devastating. We’d be opening the door for Americans to dominate European production.

Listening to you, the isolation or even neglect of the audiovisual sector within Europe appears to be the main threat.

E. R: I wouldn’t be so pessimistic. Yes, the current Parliament and Commission lean toward neoliberal policies. But that can prompt a wake-up call: our European space must be protected with strong norms. The EU isn’t just an economic body. Audiovisual and cinema sectors must assert their strategic value, not just their economic weight. This is a real opportunity. Like the political battles waged by American platforms, we must also fight to promote our model.

We also lack objective criteria for defining Europe’s cultural diversity. The far right hijacks this notion to justify their agenda—which actually harms the sector. To prevent that, we need to define clear standards. For instance, we could create a Cultural Diversity Index that would influence funding and distribution obligations. In our group, we see this strategic vision as crucial.

Our campaign slogan was “Wake up Europe.” We want the EU to grow up and stop being naïve—especially in matters of culture and audiovisual policy. This is a path we can and must take. Yes, we’ll face ideological opposition, but political alliances are possible.

I think the far right’s pressure will be so strong that many will have no choice but to wake up, stand firm, and protect our cultural model.

R. M: I’m a bit more pessimistic. Europe is shooting itself in the foot. Today, audiovisual and cinema topics are scattered across various portfolios—barely included in culture. This shows a lack of interest from the Commission. Within internal market or digital portfolios, we’re competing with industries much stronger than ours, which oppose the cultural exception. We’re always in the minority.

AI discussions are a perfect example. We ended up with a watered-down compromise because of multiple blockages, especially from France. Our country prioritized industrial interests over cultural ones. That was a mistake. Why pit technology development against creation? It makes no sense.

Geoblocking and the AVMS directive are further examples. Until cinema and audiovisual matters fall under a strong culture portfolio, we’ll face huge disadvantages.

E. R: I agree. We advocate for transferring the MEDIA program from DG Connect to DG EAC. We’ll raise this with all commissioners during hearings.

A. H: We lack tools to protect and grow our sector. I think cultural stakeholders should draft a coherent charter—a set of common rules to explain our approach to policymakers. Many MEPs don’t understand our sector or how the various laws interact. There’s a real lack of awareness of the political, economic, and cultural dangers ahead.

We win battles now and then, but we’re losing the war. The fragmentation of our issues across different committees wastes time and energy. We need a true general cultural policy.

R. M: Last September, all European filmmaker organizations requested a meeting with Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to discuss these topics. We’ve received no response. That silence is an answer: we are being ignored.

Right now, we barely know which commissioner truly supports our cause. Henna Virkkunen, the Finnish commissioner tasked with technological sovereignty, security, and democracy, is expected to oversee these topics. But she only talks about innovation and technology. This has nothing to do with creation. It’s absurd. It shows that culture is not currently an EU ambition.

You mentioned the AI Act. France's position was particularly out of synch with a particularly complex issue for creation.

E. R: I completely agree. France’s position on AI was extremely damaging. For the first time, the transpartisan consensus around the cultural exception was broken. The state’s stance weakened France’s image and undermined cultural protection as a whole. We must be very vigilant on this.

A. H: France’s position was shocking and hard to understand. France has always led the defense of authors’ rights, creativity, diversity, and the cultural exception. This only helps the Americans and Russians, whose strategy is to divide Europe. Once fragmented, it’s much easier to influence national parliaments.

E. R:  We need a clear position, backed by a strong coalition. The cultural sector’s demands on AI are aligned. We must end the opt-out model and shift the burden of proof. Tech companies must be transparent. The tech issue is secondary—what matters is the economic and political model behind it. These models can destabilize authors and our cultural industry. To defend our vision, we’ll need broad mobilization from all stakeholders.

R. M: We must stop being naïve. It took us 30 years to pass a copyright directive. People said the internet was uncontrollable. We lacked technical understanding. We can’t repeat that mistake. We can’t wait 30 years to regulate AI.

They say transparency is hard. It’s not. We must impose transparency and fair remuneration. AI can be great for creativity. When the car was invented, everything was allowed. Then we added sidewalks, crosswalks, traffic lights—to protect people. We need the same logic with AI.

Right now, regulation is too weak. For the first time in history, we’re allowing legal piracy of our works. They’re being fed into machines for free. We have no clear legal framework to stop this. With our own creations, we’re enabling Americans to produce works they own. It’s legal looting.

E. R: We can’t afford to be naïve. We must fight against the ignorance some lobbies exploit. Many professionals are already seeing a surge in American lobbying.

R. M: There’s a major offensive—mostly from the US—to dismantle everything we’ve built: AVMS, copyright, the cultural exception...

Our creative output is too strong for them. If geoblocking is removed, export revenues will vanish. Only Americans will have the resources to produce European content. If AVMS weakens, we’ll lose the ability to produce our own stories. The US will decide content.

Our current system is fair. We give Americans access to our market in exchange for supporting European production. But threats are looming. Some commissioners even echo MPA talking points.

E. R: To defend ourselves, we must stand firmly and aim high. Some French achievements—like proportional remuneration—should be extended across Europe.

AVMS will be revised. When it is, we must not be conservative but ambitious. We should strengthen obligations while keeping flexibility between countries. We must use the coming months for real outreach to stakeholders and the media. This revision must be treated as a major political issue. The industry must mobilize. You are not just whistleblowers—you must help write the rules we’ll put in place.

Roch-Olivier Maistre, President of Arcom, often says that the previous legislature in the European Parliament has profoundly altered the local and European audiovisual landscape. Do you agree with this observation, and how do you view this European commitment?

Aurore Lalucq: Indeed, the European Union was very active during the previous term, adopting numerous regulations such as the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the Digital Services Act (DSA), which aim to better regulate digital giants and combat online disinformation, as well as legislation governing the use of artificial intelligence.

These texts had a significant impact on the cultural sector. However, they are not specifically dedicated to cultural matters, and I don’t believe we can yet speak of a true cultural doctrine within the Union. I regret this, because culture is not a secondary sector—it is a crucial issue of sovereignty. Culture is not just another commodity and should not be treated as such. As the European cultural sector is under attack by competitors seeking to impose their model and practices, it is urgent for Europeans to defend their vision and implement a clear strategy, based on the protection of cultural exception and copyright, particularly in response to the rise of artificial intelligence.

The new, more fragmented composition of the European Parliament could weaken the directives passed during the previous term, such as the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD). In your view, should the audiovisual sector be even more ambitious in terms of European regulation, or focus on preserving existing achievements?

A. L: The new composition of the European Parliament is indeed concerning. The strong showing of the far right—with particularly reactionary stances on cultural policy—means we must redouble our efforts to advance key legislation.

Furthermore, it’s important to understand that much of this negotiation work is carried out by a small group of committed MEPs who are dedicated to pushing these issues forward. So it will be our responsibility to reach agreements. That is the Parliament’s role. But that doesn’t mean we should lower our ambitions or expectations—quite the opposite! That’s exactly what motivates my involvement on these issues today.

In recent months, the MPA lobby has intensified its opposition to the AVMSD and related measures. What do you think about this intense lobbying?

A. L.: It doesn’t intimidate me. They are doing their job, and I’m doing mine. My role, as a European legislator, is to protect and uphold the European cultural exception against these American giants and their hegemonic ambitions. Especially since there’s room for everyone. Regulation in favor of independent producers, artists, and European authors doesn’t exclude American productions—far from it. Is there a 30% quota for European works on audiovisual media services? That still leaves 70% for non-European ones! My job is to maintain that balance at the European level.

Moreover, it seems that American players want to invest in Europe. That’s not a problem. But it must be done on our terms, not theirs. Especially since they already benefit from numerous tax breaks or even subsidies in some countries. That’s public money! The issue isn’t stopping them from investing—that would be absurd. The real question is: under what conditions can their investments be considered "European"?

The French cultural model is quite unique compared to other European counterparts. This sometimes isolates France’s position in the European Parliament. In your view, how can we strengthen our influence?

A. L.: The French model is certainly unique, but it remains an example for professionals in the sector across other member states—especially among audiovisual and cinema producers. Furthermore, other countries have adopted key principles that France defends: Germany, Italy, and Belgium, to name a few. France must continue its advocacy for freedom of creation and independent production. I will do my part, where I am, to convince other MEPs of the importance of this cause.

Conversely, the French government’s position on the AI Act surprised the sector, favoring innovation over regulation. What’s your view on this issue?

A. L.: The two should not be mutually exclusive. In fact, the Commission says the same thing when it proposes texts like the DMA or DSA. What we need is regulation that protects users, rights holders, and public freedoms. This is essential if the European Union is to remain a sustainable model.

What role do you intend to play in supporting the audiovisual sector during this term?

A. L.: First and foremost, we will need to remain vigilant and clarify the responsibilities of appointed Commissioners to ensure that the audiovisual sector is fully taken into account and not treated as a poorly considered by-product of another portfolio. Audiovisual media hold particular importance in Europe—not just economically, but for their contribution to cultural diversity. It is therefore crucial that the responsibilities and roles of the various Commissioners in this area are well defined and coordinated.

The priority will be to ensure that audiovisual media are not viewed solely through an industrial or technological lens, but understood in their full cultural dimension. This sector embodies European cultural diversity and creativity; it must be treated accordingly. Its regulation should not be limited to market or competition concerns but should also include initiatives in favor of creation and artists.