While countries such as Germany and Austria rely on mandatory levies and tax incentives, the UK continues to pursue an open-market approach to film and series funding. The British government has officially confirmed that there will be no mandatory streaming levy. In doing so, the country is deliberately positioning itself against the recommendations of its own parliamentary committee.

Specifically, the committee had proposed obliging streaming services such as Netflix or Amazon Prime Video to promote domestic productions by levying a five per cent tax on their sales. Binding regulations to protect intellectual property were also part of the recommendations. Both have now been clearly rejected.

Instead of legal requirements, the government is focussing on its "mixed ecology" model - a mixture of national creative industries and international investment. Success stories such as Bridgerton or the cinema film Barbiewhich were partly produced in the UK, would show, according to the government, that voluntary market mechanisms are sufficient to achieve economic effects and strengthen local service providers.

Europe remains divided on cultural policy

In comparison, Germany is pursuing a different strategy: according to the Film Subsidies Act, streaming providers must pay 2.5 per cent of their gross revenues into national film subsidies. Austria is also increasingly focussing on structural policy interventions combined with tax incentives.

However, critics of the British model warn that smaller production companies and independent creatives will miss out without binding rules. This is precisely where the German funding instruments have a more targeted effect, albeit under the weight of bureaucratic procedures.

Further reforms also rejected

Other proposals from the parliamentary committee were also rejected by the British government. A return to the EU funding programme "Creative Europe", tax relief for cinema visits or a comprehensive review of tax incentives were not accepted. This was justified by the desire for simplicity and clarity of location for international investors.

Instead, reference is made to existing programmes such as the UK Global Screen Fund, which now has an annual budget of £18 million. Up to £4 billion in venture capital is also to be mobilised through the "Creative Industries Sector Vision".

Nevertheless, the proposal to link funding for further vocational training in the film industry (ScreenSkills) to measurable targets was accepted. The government also wants to appoint a so-called "Freelance Champion" to champion the interests of the self-employed in the industry. However, demands for comprehensive social security - such as a basic income for creatives - remain unfulfilled.

Conclusion

The UK remains true to its liberal approach and favours voluntary action, market incentives and international cooperation. In doing so, the country is consciously offering an alternative to the more strictly regulated subsidisation policies of many EU countries. Whether this strategy will be sufficient in the long term to sustainably strengthen smaller, independent productions remains to be seen.