Blockchain’s Role in Transforming Europe’s Film Industry
Opportunities, Challenges, and Policy Pathways in a Fragmented Audiovisual Landscape
Executive Summary
This report examines the evolving relationship between blockchain technology and the film industry, with a particular focus on European companies. While blockchain is often associated with cryptocurrencies, its core functionalities – decentralized record-keeping, cryptographic security, and smart contracts – offer potential applications in rights management and licensing, revenue distribution, content monetization, investment, and community management. However, despite its theoretical advantages, blockchain adoption in the creative industries remains in an experimental phase, with few large-scale implementations to date.
The film industry faces long-standing challenges related to copyright enforcement, metadata standardization, rights licensing inefficiencies, and revenue transparency. Many of these issues stem from fragmented, proprietary rights management databases, leading to high transaction costs, payment delays, and limited accessibility to licensing markets, particularly for independent creators. While intermediaries like collection agents, sales agents, and distributors play key roles in connecting different parts of the supply chain, blockchain technologies have been explored as a means to improve the efficiency and transparency of these interactions.
The companies analyzed in this report have taken different approaches to blockchain adoption, ranging from cautious integration to bold, radical innovation. For example, companies like Content.Agent and Valunode focus on building interoperable metadata registries or repositories, aiming to create a standardized infrastructure for rights management. Such initiatives align with broader EU efforts, including the Data Governance Act (DGA) and the European Blockchain Services Infrastructure (EBSI), emphasizing regulatory compliance and public–private collaboration. However, the vision of an open and accessible copyright metadata infrastructure may conflict with the interests of major data holders – such as large studios and platforms – who benefit from maintaining dominance in licensing markets through proprietary databases and standards.
Blockchain-enabled automation has also been experimented with in revenue management. For example, we show how Cascade8 (through its Blockframes platform) intended to leverage blockchain for transparent and efficient revenue distribution, yet practical challenges – such as high development costs and usability concerns – led to a partial retreat from blockchain in favour of more practical centralized alternatives. Such entrepreneurial experiences highlight the gap between blockchain’s theoretical efficiency and its real-world implementation challenges, particularly regarding the complexity of integrating public and private data within a decentralized technological framework.
In addition, this report exemplifies how blockchain has been utilized to develop alternative film financing models, particularly through tokenization and crowdfunding. We discuss a Spanish film project Calladita, which successfully raised capital through non-fungible token (NFT) sales, demonstrating how blockchain can be used to engage fans as financial backers early in the development phase. Another example is Decentralized Pictures (DCP), a non-profit decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) that introduced a blockchain-based collaborative funding model, rewarding community engagement through FILMCredit tokens. These cases illustrate the potential of tokenized participation, but they also reveal legal and regulatory hurdles – such as restrictions on profit-sharing with token holders and the lack of clear tax policies for NFT-based revenues.
On the distribution side, the report features blockchain-based streaming platforms like Myco and White Rabbit that have sought to transform traditional distribution models for audiovisual content. Myco has developed a ‘watch-and-earn’ approach, sharing ad revenue with both creators and viewers, while White Rabbit initially pursued a direct-payment solution for pirated content, aimed to scale, before pivoting to a more tailored streaming service with tokenized rewards, owing to legal warnings. These platforms aim to disrupt centralized streaming services like YouTube and Netflix, but their success hinges on user adoption, regulatory clarity, and the broader acceptance of blockchain-based monetization models.
Despite the diversity of blockchain initiatives in the film industry, therefore, several recurring challenges remain. Legal uncertainties, including the compatibility of blockchain-based copyright databases with the Berne Convention and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), pose obstacles to widespread adoption. The industry’s existing power structures, particularly the dominance of major content aggregators and platforms, can create resistance to decentralized alternatives. Furthermore, blockchain itself does not inherently solve data accuracy issues – the ‘garbage-in, garbage-out’ problem remains, requiring trusted intermediaries for data validation and governance. Additionally, while blockchain can enhance transparency, it also can lead to problems such as cryptocurrency instability and monopolistic tendencies. Therefore, while blockchain-based systems can offer more efficient alternatives to centralized models for the audiovisual sector, they risk becoming just one of many competing options, further fragmenting the landscape and adding complexity for industry professionals.
The findings presented in the report lead to a set of recommendations that we propose to European policy and industry stakeholders. These recommendations chart a practical roadmap for unlocking blockchain’s promise in Europe’s fragmented film ecology. They call on EU and national policymakers to couple legal certainty with an interoperable data spine, ensuring that smart‑contract licensing and on‑chain royalty flows can scale seamlessly across borders. By pairing generous sandbox funding with hands-on training delivered through film institutes and industry guilds, our proposed strategy would lower adoption barriers for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) while guarding against one‑size‑fits‑all disruption. Finally, by legitimizing token‑based community finance, the EU can open fresh capital channels for independent voices, balancing market power and securing more diverse, transparent, and resilient revenue streams for Europe’s audiovisual sector.
Co-Authors
Statement of Originality
This deliverable contains original unpublished work except where clearly indicated otherwise. Acknowledgement of previously published material and of the work of others has been made through appropriate citation, quotation, or both.
Disclaimer
The European Commission’s support for the production of this publication does not constitute an endorsement of the contents, which reflect the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Introduction
Europe consists mostly of small countries. This has been both an opportunity as well as a challenge for the European film and TV industries. Opportunities lie in the inherent diversity of European culture deriving from the multiplicities of small and distinct national ecosystems. Europe has a wide diversity of perspectives and many stories to tell. However, smallness also comes with a distinctive set of vulnerabilities in an increasingly globalized and platform-driven environment. Compared to larger markets, small nations often contend with limited production capacity, smaller domestic audiences, a constrained pool of creative and technical talent, and, relatedly, a higher reliance on public support systems (Hjort & Petrie, 2007). ‘Smallness’ can mean fewer resources, making it harder to compete with well-funded international players and to recoup investments domestically. Relatedly, small-scale production companies struggle with under-capitalization, often having to rely on project-by-project financing rather than building sustainable business models.
Further, while Europe’s inherent diversity is its strength, it is also a fact that the lesser-known cultural and linguistic identities do not necessarily travel well outside domestic borders, complicating the local producers’ ability to export films and secure distribution deals internationally. That is, despite efforts by the EU to enforce the Digital Single Market (DSM) also with regard to film distribution and consumption, national borders still significantly impact the distribution and consumption of audiovisual content. European Union policies such as content quotas and the ‘Netflix tax’ have had limited success in promoting European content across borders (Boshnakova et al., 2024).
With regard to theatrical windows, large multiplexes have long prioritized high-budget US blockbusters, leaving smaller domestic productions often fighting for screen space. Yet, this long-term challenge has started to expire since, as noted by Biltereyst, Gipponi, and Miconi (2024, p. 13), it is the streaming platforms that have become ‘the heart of the industry’ and central to international distribution and reach, relegating theatrical releases to a niche status. The dominance of global streaming giants like Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Disney, however, presents another challenge to Europe’s smaller countries as these platforms have had substantial resources with which to produce and acquire content, but have often favoured productions from larger markets or their own original content. That is, the activities and strategic choices of the global platforms have created a complex ecosystem where smaller films risk getting lost among international offerings, further limiting opportunities to reach audiences. Even when the content from Europe’s smaller countries is available on these platforms, it may be buried under algorithms that favour more mainstream or popular content. The efficiency of video-on-demand (VOD) distribution depends on investment in targeted marketing campaigns, and the selective approach of transnational platforms often disadvantages content from small peripheral markets (Szczepanik et al., 2020).
Such challenges when it comes to the algorithmic governance of international film distribution, promotion, and consumption point to another structural limitation in European markets – a lack of transparent and interoperable data systems that undermine the visibility of especially small country films and effective distribution processes in the digital era. These challenges could also be seen to stem primarily from the fragmented nature of European markets. Each country operates within its own legislative framework, with divergent standards for cataloguing rights and reporting box office or streaming data. As the international standardization efforts for film or intellectual rights data have been inefficient, it has been too difficult to create data systems to access data about produced films, their distribution, film rights, or creator rights or roles. This has led to a lack of comprehensive or harmonized datasets, making it difficult to track a film’s performance across multiple territories or to compare performance metrics consistently. Differences in language, currency, and metadata formats also complicate cross-border data gathering and analysis. As a result, producers, distributors, and sales agents have a hard time obtaining reliable, up-to-date insights into how local and European titles perform both domestically and internationally.
What has been adding to challenges is that global streaming platforms often do not publicly disclose granular viewing figures or licensing details, so European stakeholders have to rely on aggregate or estimated analytics. Additionally, the complexity of multi-territorial licensing deals – where rights may be split by platform, region, or time frame – creates a tangled web for tracking which titles are available to which audiences, under which terms. All this is owing to the lack of standardization and transparency in rights management, which often means that rights identification and clearance is too complex and costly. This inefficiency in rights management not only slows down business processes but also makes the market less scalable. Similarly, the current system of revenue distribution is complex and often opaque, making it difficult for investors and creators to track their returns.
Altogether, the high cost of collecting and integrating disparate data – alongside the need to adhere to strict privacy regulations – further hinders many smaller European companies. Collectively, these factors make it difficult for Europe’s fragmented film sector to engage in evidence-based decision-making around marketing, distribution, and investment. To address these challenges, several initiatives have emerged in recent years in Europe aimed at developing novel data management technologies, including blockchain-based solutions. These initiatives, both public and private, aim to improve transparency, streamline rights management, and create more efficient marketplaces for film content. There are also novel solutions for automated revenue distribution for enabling interested parties, including fans and supporters, to invest in film production more easily. However, successful implementation of such a range of interrelated solutions will require a concerted effort from industry players, technology providers, and policymakers to overcome resistance, standardize practices, and educate the market on the benefits of these new technologies. This report is designed to map the existing initiatives and analyze their potential contributions and value to film industry stakeholders in improving data management and exchange systems, resulting in the competitive advantage of European firms and scaling up the EU internal market.
Blockchain & Copyright Industries
To better understand this trend, we first review blockchain fundamentals in a copyright context. Blockchain is a type of distributed ledger technology (DLT) that combines databases, cryptography, and peer-to-peer (P2P) networks to create a decentralized, secure, and immutable record of information. It is best known as the technology behind Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin’s first transaction was recorded on 12 January 2009, and its network has operated continuously since then. Unlike traditional finance, where trusted intermediaries like banks maintain centralized records to prevent double spending – the risk of using digital currency more than once – Bitcoin relies on a public distributed ledger maintained by a network of computers. This eliminates the need for a central authority, enabling decentralization and enhancing network resilience.
However, blockchain’s applications extend beyond payments and financial instruments; any record of information can be securely represented on a blockchain, allowing different stakeholders to establish consensus and trust around ‘social facts’. In the wake of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, blockchain has been proposed for various other functions, including use cases in the creative industries. For the purposes of this paper, we consider the film industry as part of the core copyright industries, given its reliance on copyright law to safeguard and monetize artistic works through complex contracts among various stakeholders.
There is a historical tension between copyright and new technologies, as copyright regimes have had to adapt to both new production technologies (which introduce new forms of artistic works) and new communication and distribution technologies (such as broadcasting, the internet, and P2P networks). This evolution has increased the volume of potential copyright infringements and, consequently, the costs of rights enforcement (Lane & Platz, 2020).
The Berne Convention, established in 1886 and now comprising 181 nations, serves as the international baseline treaty for copyright protection. It requires signatories to recognize and enforce copyright for works from other member states without formalities. This means that copyright is automatically granted to the author, with no need for declaration, registration, deposit of a copy, or submission of related data. However, sometimes an author wants to prove that he or she is the original creator of certain copyrighted material. There are many (commercial) registries where authors can register their works, and these could potentially be replaced by blockchain-based decentralized alternatives. Recording the actual use of copyrighted material on the blockchain – and automating payments to the respective rights holders – has been discussed as a potentially convenient and transparent method for managing royalties.
The most significant regulation shaping licensing markets in the EU’s digital creative industries is the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (2019/790), particularly through its harmonization of rules on digital content use and platform liability. The directive asserts that rights holders are entitled to fair, proportional, and transparent compensation. However, individual EU member states implement the directive differently and maintain additional national regulations, leading to variations and added complexity in licensing frameworks across the region (Bodó et al., 2018, pp. 320–321; Savelyev, 2018). In other words, there is no single international copyright law. Yet, digital rights licensing markets – particularly in the film sector – operate on a global scale.
The foundation of rights enforcement and licensing transactions lies in rights management information (RMI), which includes identification metadata to identify rights holders and works, and rights metadata to define authorship, ownership, and the terms for exploiting these works (European Commission, 2022, p. 37). While some standard content identifiers such as EIDR and ISAN have been developed, a key challenge for the audiovisual sector – where copyright is often divided among various stakeholders – is that much of the RMI is neither consistent nor accessible on neutral terms to all industry participants. Instead, a significant portion of this information is stored in siloed proprietary databases in non-compatible formats (European Commission, 2022, pp. 76–77; Savelyev, 2018). As Senftleben et al. (2022, p. 69) argue: ‘The lack of interoperability between data management systems and related data libraries forces stakeholders to deal with a highly inefficient, and often inaccurate, piecemeal network of data providers, systems, datasets and standards.’
The existing system is therefore widely regarded as suboptimal within the industry, resulting in higher administrative and transaction costs for rights management and delayed royalty payments to rights holders. Additionally, ineffective rights management practices increase the risk of unauthorized use of copyright-protected content – piracy – which remains a significant issue in audiovisual markets (European Commission, 2022, p. 80; MUSO, 2023).
Potential blockchain use cases
Consequently, legal and economic scholars have proposed several ways in which blockchain technologies could theoretically address these challenges. These will be explored in this section.
First, blockchain could provide the technological foundation for decentralized, tamper-proof registries/repositories of accurate copyright information – such as authorship, ownership, and licensing terms – thereby increasing transparency and trust between contracting parties. This potential has been most extensively explored in the context of the music industry. While previous attempts to develop comprehensive, global centralized databases – such as the Global Repertoire Database – have failed owing to funding and leadership issues (Bodó et al., 2018, p. 324; Milosic, 2015; Senftleben et al., 2022, pp. 74–75; Savelyev, 2018), blockchain, as a ‘trustless technology’, could open new avenues for decentralized governance of such rights metadata systems. For example, a recent paper proposed practical design principles for a blockchain-based rights data repository in the context of the music industry (Ciriello et al., 2023).
The idea of shared and interoperable data infrastructures has become especially relevant in the context of the European strategy for data, which aims at ‘creating a single market for data that will ensure Europe’s global competitiveness and data sovereignty’. This is based on investments and legislative measures (e.g., the Data Governance Act (DGA) and the Data Act) focused on data governance, access, and use. Fourteen strategic domains have been defined in which Common European Data Spaces are being developed to realize this policy vision. From an infrastructure perspective, these data initiatives are supported by the European Blockchain Services Infrastructure (EBSI) – a European blockchain for public services – among the projects of which is the concept of a common European cross-sectoral data space for copyright (Open Rights Data Exchange, discussed later as one case study).
Another approach to creating a shared copyright data infrastructure has emerged in the context of platforms hosting user-generated content (UGC) (e.g., YouTube). Specifically, Article 17(4)(b) of the EU copyright directive states that platforms must make best efforts to block or prevent access to unauthorized uploads of protected works, provided that rights holders have supplied the ‘relevant and necessary information’. Senftleben et al. (2022) argue that bundling such notifications through this legal mechanism could form the foundation for an up-to-date, blockchain-based pan-European rights ownership data repository, enhancing the accessibility and visibility of European cultural content in the long run. They also suggest that copyright databases are crucial for authorizing the use of copyrighted works in training artificial intelligence (AI) models, which could create new markets and additional revenue for rights holders. Hypothetically, this would benefit both the European tech and creative industries, allowing them to compete more effectively with counterparts in other regions.
Senftleben et al. (2022, pp. 77–78) also argue that initiatives to improve copyright data infrastructures ‘may come from different actors in the public and private sphere, and employ different tools of public and private law’ and ‘it may be necessary to combine public and private initiatives and seek to offer both legislative and market incentives’. No matter how one approaches the concept of a decentralized copyright data repository, a foundational metadata infrastructure is, arguably, essential for scaling the more business-focused and experimental blockchain applications discussed later.
Second, it has been proposed that blockchain-enabled metadata systems could be complemented by smart-contracting applications/platforms that have the potential to automate licensing agreements, bypassing intermediaries. A smart contract is a ‘self-executing computer code that automatically processes its inputs when triggered’ (Finck & Moscon, 2019, p. 91). In a commercial context, it enables ‘transactions in situations devoid of human or institutional trust, lowers transaction costs and reduces counterparty risk and interpretative uncertainty’ (Finck & Moscon, 2019, p. 93). Smart contracts also have the potential to change the pricing models of copyrighted content for end users, as savings in transaction costs could make micropayments – very small transfers of digital currency – economically viable. This could benefit filmmakers and creators by enabling instant, transparent, and fair remuneration in a ‘direct-to-fan’ fashion (Finck & Moscon, 2019, p. 95).
Third, blockchain has the potential to create ‘artificial scarcity’ through the tokenization of copyrighted goods and services – any element associated with creative works – effectively preventing double spending. Specifically, tokens can be fungible (exchangeable for another token of the same value), commonly referred to as cryptocurrencies, or non-fungible (unique, non-interchangeable assets), commonly referred to as NFTs. Tokenization is expected to increase commodification and open up new secondary markets for emerging forms of digital content such as collectibles (Finck & Moscon, 2019, pp. 93–94; Rennie et al., 2019, p. 16). It could also enable new models of investment and funding, allowing creators to raise capital by issuing tokens that represent ownership, governance stakes, or even future revenue shares in their work. The best illustration of the potential value of tokens is the NFT art boom of 2021 (Binns, 2022).
Fourth, scholars have highlighted the potential of blockchain-enabled organizations (e.g., DAOs) that could challenge or transform the role of existing intermediaries and representation bodies (e.g,. legacy studios, national licensing authorities, collection agents, major distribution platforms). In fact, the first systematic scholarly treatment in the social sciences – derived from institutional economics, specifically – frames blockchain as a governance technology, a ‘mechanism for groups of people to coordinate their economic activity’ (Davidson et al., 2018, p. 641). Therefore, blockchain-enabled, token-based participation and governance mechanisms can create exclusive ‘transactional communities’ (Swartz, 2020), where members share a common interest and trust in a specific currency (e.g., a native token) as the primary medium of value within the community (see Järvekülg et al., 2024 for examples).
While blockchains have the potential to decentralize information management, disintermediation is not always the main objective. For instance, communities organized as DAOs may form around specific films or creators, driven by new forms of fan engagement rather than the removal of intermediaries, or may focus on creative collaboration or decentralized decision-making.
These use case scenarios, which remain largely speculative or unadopted at scale for now, illustrate the broader imaginaries surrounding blockchain technologies. Drawing on examples from the financial sector, which has been most affected by blockchain so far, Swartz (2017) proposed a heuristic distinction between two alternative techno-economic future visions of blockchain technology: radical and incorporative blockchain dreams. While the former are geared towards revolutionary economic and socio-political change driven by self-governing networks of commons, the latter seek to incorporate blockchain into the existing techno-economic order to make it more efficient.
Swartz (2017, p. 88) explains:
Advocates of radical blockchain projects dream of a future in which institutions are disaggregated into millions of microsocial obligations backed by computerized contracts. They rarely articulate the intermediate steps through which such a future comes into being. While the dreams of incorporative blockchain advocates tend to lack the long-range vision of their radical peers, they focus instead on the short-term challenges of implementation. Concerned with the material constraints of the present, incorporative blockchain dreamers offer a vision of institutions transformed rather than destroyed.
Swartz’s work is helpful for understanding the nature of the companies discussed in Section 4.
Challenges of blockchain adoption
As of 2025, few blockchain projects in the realm of creative industries are fully operational. The broader adoption of the technology is limited by various legal, technological, and cultural barriers.
For example, whether a voluntary or mandatory registration with a publicly governed copyright database would constitute a (hidden) ‘formality’ that affects the exercise of rights (which is prohibited under the Berne Convention) remains a subject of specialized legal debate (Bodó et al., 2018, p. 325; Tresise et al., 2018). Another important legal issue to note is the tension between blockchain-based data structures and the GDPR (Finck, 2018).
Also, widespread blockchain application for copyright licensing requires extensive coordination, particularly regarding the relationship between on-chain and off-chain interactions. As Bodó et al. (2018, pp. 319, 322) observe, rather than a complete and rapid transition to blockchain, it is more likely that blockchain-enabled and traditional contracts will coexist as parallel, synchronous copyright regimes, which adds to the legal complexity of conflict resolution in an already fragmented jurisdiction (see also Savelyev, 2018). This suggests that, rather than reducing information uncertainty, blockchain systems might have the opposite effect.
From a functional perspective, while blockchain technology is highly effective at preserving the validity and provenance of information stored within the distributed ledger, it cannot independently verify the accuracy of information at the point of entry into the system. Specifically, blockchain does not offer a solution to the ‘garbage-in garbage-out’ problem – the need to ensure that only high-quality, trustworthy information is entered into the system, which still requires validation by a reliable third-party authority. As Bodo et al. (2018, pp. 328–329) note: ‘Blockchain-based transparency may diminish the need to have a third party determine ownership, but it does not eliminate the need for other functions provided by such third parties.’
The authors also argue that the core friction is not between the technical compatibility of blockchain and copyright law per se. Rather, it is ‘between the social, economic, and political conditions that produced the blockchain technology ecosystem, on the one hand, and the social, economic, and political premises from which the current copyright system developed’ (Bodo et al., 2018, p. 336).
For example, attempts to create a shared copyright data infrastructure are likely shaped by the rivalry between small and big players, the fear of losing the traditional gatekeeper position, and path dependence. To illustrate, Senftleben et al. (2022, p. 78) explain:
At the global level, individual companies with considerable market power, such as Apple, Spotify, YouTube, and Netflix, may establish individual data standards that require European right holders to deal with different data systems for the purposes of distributing content and monitoring the volume of use. European artists and music distributors may also fear being left behind. In fact, they may lose visibility and market shares in the world market. … Once a comprehensive and authoritative platform for rights clearance is in place, traditional ‘middlemen’ in the rights clearance process may fear that they become obsolete. … Stakeholders are likely to have invested substantially in their own proprietary, and often incompatible (meta-)data systems. This investment in individual data infrastructures causes considerable switching costs in case an overarching, harmonized standard is set.
Scholars have also highlighted risks such as the volatility of cryptocurrencies for royalty payments and low adoption rates on one hand, and the potential for network effects to lead to monopolistic marketplaces on the other (Finck & Moscon, 2019, pp. 97–98; Lane & Platz, 2020).
Given the challenges of adopting blockchain to enhance copyright regimes, some scholars anticipate the need for copyright law reforms similar to those implemented in response to the internet’s impact on creative industries (Lane & Platz, 2020). Therefore, the status and potential compatibility of phenomena such as cryptocurrencies or smart contracts with existing laws remains a hotly debated topic among legal scholars. The general understanding is that whether or not a smart contract under EU law can qualify as a ‘real contract’ depends on how it is constructed and the applicable legal framework. In principle, a contract requires mutual consent between parties – typically formed when one party makes an offer and the other accepts it. For instance, a smart contract that facilitates the online sale of an NFT may function in this way: the seller offers the NFT, and the buyer signals acceptance by clicking a ‘buy’ button. However, to be legally enforceable, the smart contract must also comply with specific legal requirements. Many jurisdictions impose formalities for certain types of agreements – such as requiring a handwritten (‘wet’) signature or its recognized digital equivalent, particularly for the transfer of copyright or other intellectual property rights. This raises the unresolved question of whether cryptographic signatures used on blockchains can satisfy such formal requirements under EU or national law.
Another issue concerns public policy responses to blockchain. On the one hand, governments have always played a key role in developing cryptographic standards, either directly or by funding research institutions (Berg et al., 2019). On the other hand, the rise of blockchain and cryptocurrencies in the early to mid-2000s led to mostly restrictive public policy and regulatory approaches, particularly concerning taxation, money laundering, and other criminal activities. However, early blockchain literature also highlights ‘crypto-friendly’ states like Switzerland, Australia, Singapore, and Estonia, which have adopted more welcoming approaches to these technologies (Novak, 2020). The aforementioned EBSI framework of the EU is an early example of a systematic public sector initiative aimed at blockchain adoption for public services. Additionally, the recent MiCA (Markets in Crypto-Assets) regulation, fully applicable since December 2024, is another measure designed to streamline blockchain adoption and enhance legal certainty around cryptocurrencies.
Concerning use cases for the creative industries, Rennie et al. (2019) argue for proactive state intervention to facilitate blockchain adoption. In particular, they propose the idea of a national (Australian) creative blockchain – a publicly financed economic infrastructure with public good characteristics, designed as an ‘industry utility’ to provide the aforementioned benefits for creative professionals, similar to how electricity grids, ports, and roads serve all citizens. While such an infrastructure would not generate profit, it would enhance the productivity of creative industries (Rennie et al., 2019, p. 21), shifting the cultural policy rationale from a subsidy-based model to an innovation policy approach (Potts & Rennie, 2019, p. 106).
This report aims to expand the discussion to the European film industry, focusing on the emerging film-tech companies experimenting with blockchain. It also aims to provide valuable insights for policymakers in designing appropriate measures to support blockchain adoption in the creative industries. The central question guiding our inquiry is: How is blockchain being experimented with, and how do entrepreneurs envision its future role in the European film industry?
Methods & Sample
This paper is based on semi-structured interviews and desk research conducted in the second half of 2024. Table 1 presents an overview of key companies and projects operating at the intersection of the film and audiovisual industries and blockchain technology as of late 2024. These companies were identified through an analysis of publicly available online information, informed by prior research conducted by the authors and other work packages of the CresCine project. Initially, desk research identified around 20 relevant companies, but further outreach revealed that many had ceased operations despite maintaining a digital presence. As a result, Table 1 does not offer a comprehensive list of all market players; rather, it shows a curated selection that provides diverse qualitative insights into the topic.
The companies in the sample engage with various stages of a film project’s life cycle, from securing co-production and financial partners during the development phase to handling international sales, distribution deals, digital consumption, and the distribution of royalties and revenues. We differentiate between business-to-business (B2B) and business-to-consumer (B2C) services, note each company’s business strategy (for-profit or non-profit), and indicate their headquarters’ location by country. Most EU-based companies have received funding from the EU, often through the MEDIA strand of the Creative Europe programme. While four of these companies were based outside the EU, they are included in the sample to illustrate the diversity of existing blockchain applications in the audiovisual sector. We interviewed the chief executive officers (CEOs) of all these companies except Filmchain, which was unavailable for an interview. The interviews were transcribed and coded based on key themes and topics, including company background, service descriptions, blockchain applications, target customers, and technological and legal challenges.
Many of these companies had already launched their initial services, some were preparing for 2025 launches, while others remained in the visionary or developmental stages. In Section 4, we outline the service development efforts these companies focused on during the second half of 2024. Notably, most aimed to expand into multidimensional services and offer a broader range of functionalities in the future. Given the similarity of their service visions, some may eventually become competitors if they achieve market success. At the same time, some initiatives – such as Content.Agent and Valunode, or DCP and Myco – were already connected through shared interests, team members, or partnerships. This underscores the interconnected nature of film innovation networks formed around decentralization technologies.
Findings
The discussion of findings is structured as narratives centred on broader service categories, whether envisioned or already introduced to the market. We examine companies’ background, value propositions in the context of current film industry challenges, as well as specific blockchain applications, highlighting differences, similarities, and complementarities.
Visions of a B2B rights and licence marketplace (Content.Agent, and Valunode)
As discussed in Section 2, scholars have recognized the potential of blockchain to facilitate a decentralized copyright data infrastructure, enabling more efficient licensing practices. To reiterate, a comprehensive, shared, distributed, interoperable, and accessible database of up-to-date RMI could feed rights and licensing marketplaces with high-quality data, making content more visible and enhancing trust among stakeholders in any particular copyright industry.
Based on the interviews, two main components of a (future) functional modular marketplace were described: a quality open database/ledger of RMI with registration and search features for rights owners (sellers) and rights users (buyers); and a business environment with personalized dashboards, including asset management, recommendations, and contract signing features – in other words, a rights management platform.
Two companies in our sample were pursuing broadly similar visions, though with slightly different approaches. First, Content.Agent, founded in Vienna, originated from IMZ International Music + Media Centre, a non-profit members’ organization and business network focused on promoting music, dance, and performing arts films worldwide. While IMZ hosts Avant Première, an international trade fair held annually during the European Film Market in Berlin, Content.Agent was initially created to digitally support the network’s business activities throughout the year.
One of the first challenges faced by this initiative was the lack of well-established metadata standards, an issue already discussed in Section 2. As the CEO of Content.Agent put it: ‘There are so many standards that the question arises, is there actually any standard?’ In response, the project developed a set of metadata criteria for data quality assurance, enabling films to be presented and traded as assets on the marketplace. It then began developing the marketplace functionalities, including a European License Ledger – their version of a copyright data registry. The company collaborated with a small group of producers and distributors to develop its services.
Second, Valunode was founded by a systems engineer in Estonia with extensive experience at the intersection of copyright and DLT. His background includes years of advising the European Commission and working with leading standardization bodies such as the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). The CEO has previously explored the creation of distributed copyright infrastructures in partnership with various public sector and industry representatives across multiple countries (see Järvekülg & Ibrus, 2024, for an example). As of late 2024, Valunode was developing an Open Rights Data Exchange, a use case within EBSI. The company aimed to position itself as a data intermediation service provider (DISP), as defined by the DGA, facilitating connections between rights holders and users via a distributed RMI repository. In other words, Valunode’s operations were strictly defined by a specific techno-legal and innovation policy framework. Unlike Content.Agent, Valunode did not aim to offer a rights management or trading platform. Instead, it focused on providing high-quality, neutral data to support such platforms, aligning with the definition of a DISP under the DGA. Valunode is, therefore, an example of a company that views regulations as an opportunity rather than a barrier. As the CEO put it: ‘Solving the legal challenge is the service we provide.’
Both companies contributed to various metadata standardization initiatives. Their service visions, in turn, favoured a step-by-step, gradual implementation of blockchain, while acknowledging the potential for broader adoption of scalable business applications, such as NFTs, in the future. To illustrate, the CEO of Valunode said:
‘Before we have a system which is shared and adopted by many people, we typically need standards. … Working only on the system and thinking that standards will come when they will come, I think, would be completely wrong.’ Therefore, Content.Agent and Valunode represent the incorporative blockchain vision (Swartz, 2017) in the European audiovisual sector.
Specific blockchain application scenarios in these initiatives included rights and licence verification through smart contracts, creating a tamper-proof record in the public registry (Content.Agent), and time-stamped binding between manifestations of protected works and identification of rights declarers (Valunode).
In theory, an open-rights and licence database, coupled with a shared marketplace, could provide significant value to independent producers, including increased content visibility, improved business efficiency, and reduced transaction and compliance costs. In the future, for example, the CEO of Content.Agent said that such marketplaces could also integrate ‘personalized recommendations to buyers, statistics about the markets, ’ and ‘certain territorial and genre-specific trends to the sellers’ based on industry data analytics, amounting to an effective commercial ecosystem.
If such an open, modular marketplace were to emerge, it would particularly benefit SMEs by improving their access to the licensing market, which is currently dominated by major catalogue owners. A key challenge for companies like Valunode and Content.Agent is convincing larger industry players to collaborate and grant access to the metadata of their extensive catalogues held in proprietary databases – something they may resist, as it could diminish their market dominance. As the CEO of Valunode explained:
The word ‘open’ is frightening to many people, and it’s frightening for two legitimate reasons. The first is that some data holders take advantage of the silos of data that are closed – for business advantage, commercial advantage. … The second reason is that those data holders have invested a lot of money in their data, their data structure, repositories, etc. They want their money back, which, of course, is legitimate. … To move into an open world, you need to, at some moment, take a leap of faith: if you can adapt your business model, the open data world will make more money than the closed data world. Open data, in my view, is the only technical possibility to automate and synchronize access to content with remuneration for creators. I cannot imagine it with a closed system because a closed system takes time – it cannot be synchronized. So it has to be open. That leap of faith is the biggest hurdle of all. … This means we need to succeed modestly – small examples and not alone, because we are only the system provider. So we will succeed modestly with small examples with rights holders and rights users. And maybe then, that can gain traction.
Whether it’s a European License Ledger or an Open Rights Data Exchange, the idea of open copyright databases will likely become increasingly relevant in the future, especially with the expectation that the rapid evolution of AI technologies will drive demand for automated licensing requests and rights conflict resolutions (Senftleben et al., 2022). As the CEO of Content.Agent said: ‘AI will rely on transparency and on security, and you will only be able to play along or be part of the market if you really adapt to it and really learn how to utilize technology for yourself.’ The need for better-organized metadata frameworks is not exclusive to the film industry but extends to other creative copyright industries dealing with other than audiovisual content types. For example, both Content.Agent and Valunode were using ISCC (international standard content code), an open-source technology officially published as an ISO standard in May 2024, as their core identification system of digital assets to enable cross-sectoral data exchange.
In a way, the function of these companies is to equip the industry with ‘blockchain-ready’ data models, preparing it for broader adoption of Web3 and AI technologies in the future. This is also why they don’t operate as traditional commercial enterprises. Instead, such initiatives typically emerge from non-profit organizational contexts, are collaborative environments, and rely on the public (and political) support that characterizes standardization processes. In other words, these companies can be seen as potential enablers of future commercial businesses, or as data infrastructures that provide ‘shared means to many ends’ (Frischmann, 2012, p. 4), with the potential to unlock new, more scalable markets.
Vision of B2B social database of EU-funded projects and companies (FilmConnect)
FilmConnect is a technology company based in Croatia, founded with the aim of creating tools to enhance the efficiency of co-production scenarios. The idea was inspired by the CEO’s personal challenges as a film producer in a developing domestic film market.
Co-production is an approach that, for historical reasons, has become a cornerstone of the post-1960 European method of film financing and production. It continues to be a crucial strategy for continental territories, enabling them to access additional financing and distribution opportunities beyond their national support systems (Finney, 2022, p. 114). The core pan-European fund for European multilateral co-productions is Eurimage. Before applying for Eurimage funds, filmmakers typically seek funding from national film funds. However, there is no shared database for publicly funded film projects across Europe, which creates an information gap that motivated the creation of FilmConnect.
The company manually gathers and aggregates public data about publicly funded film projects and production companies to seed its initial database, with an aim to make it accessible to film professionals seeking collaborations. At the time of the interview, having tested the service with around 50 clients, the company was expecting to launch the first version of its service in 2025.
In the first stage, FilmConnect aimed to develop a platform for producers featuring search, matchmaking, and social review functions to help them find trusted co-production and business partners in foreign countries. Personalized, AI-driven recommendations for business matches were planned to be based on criteria such as budget range, genre, and mutual connections. Additionally, the integration of an externally developed blockchain-based online signature tool was intended to enable producers to enter into contracts with select partners.
According to the CEO, such a business platform with social features is essential because current professional databases (like Cannes Film Market’s Cinando) lack sufficient industry utility for finding the best match. The benefit of incorporating social review features, therefore, is to reduce the risks of collaborating with unfamiliar partners. As the CEO commented:
Most of the time, when you enter co-production deals with another producer from another country, you don’t know them very well, especially if it’s your first collaboration. … All producers can review their past collaborations. So if they had a good experience with their former co-producers, they can say that, and they can also leave a public review if they had a bad experience.
FilmConnect’s vision was to expand into rights management services in the future and ultimately evolve into a one-stop, modular business platform for all film industry stakeholders, supporting them at every stage of the film industry value chain. ‘We think there is a big-big space for utilizing blockchain in making rights and financial management more transparent and automated’, the CEO said. In the next section, we will explore this potential further by looking at companies that have leveraged blockchain for film revenue management.
B2B revenue management software (Filmchain, Blockframes/Cascade8)
As already discussed, blockchain has often been proposed as a potentially useful technology for simplifying the complexities of rights licensing in the film market. While rights information management companies (e.g., FilmTrack and MovieChainer) track data on who owns and controls a film’s intellectual property and how it is licensed across various channels, territories, and formats, revenue management focuses on how the money generated from the exploitation of these rights is collected, tracked, and distributed.
The obligation for rights holders to provide up-to-date statements on royalties and revenues to authors and performers stems from the DSM Directive 2019/790. However, in practice, the so-called waterfalls of revenue distribution can become highly complex, and independent producers often struggle to comply with the law. Blockchain technologies could help facilitate transparency, automation, and compliance, thus reducing the complexity of revenue allocation.
We have identified two companies with a focus on revenue management that have experimented with blockchain technologies. These are Filmchain, based in the UK, and Cascade8, based in France.
These services either operate as collection account management (CAM) providers themselves (like Filmchain) or collaborate with a CAM partner (like Cascade8’s partnership with Freeway Entertainment). For instance, under the Eurimages framework, all funded co-productions with budgets exceeding €3 million must engage a trusted collection agent, who is responsible for distributing revenues according to a predetermined recoupment schedule.
On its website, Filmchain claims to be the first digital collection agent, utilizing a private Ethereum-based blockchain for ‘payment automation’ and ‘to lower the costs of film revenue collection and distribution and to significantly speed up the money flow end-to-end’. The company uses blockchain as a security layer without involving cryptocurrencies. In a 2022 blog post, Filmchain shared its experience with blockchain technologies; however, owing to limited first-hand data, its current and more specific applications remained unclear. Nevertheless, Filmchain is listed among the CAM service providers that have collaborated with Eurimages and is already a major player in revenue management.
Cascade8 was founded in 2019 by the financial production company Logical Pictures with the aim of developing an app ecosystem to support all stages of a film project. At the core of this vision was Blockframes, a revenue management platform originally developed on the public Ethereum blockchain. The ecosystem also included an NFT marketplace, which, according to the CEO, was active during the ‘NFT golden age’ but has been suspended owing to the downturn in the NFT market.
At the time of the interview, the company was focused on developing Blockframes, which launched to the market in 2024 at Cannes. However, after four years of blockchain research and development, Blockframes largely replaced blockchain technology with centralized solutions for three main reasons: high development costs, the complexity of managing both public and private data on blockchain (‘we don’t believe in private blockchain’), and usability challenges for end clients. ‘Both the technology and the market were not ready’, the CEO said. Blockchain was retained as an option for registering declarations, contracts, and invoices – at the request of stakeholders.
The goal of making revenue-sharing practices more transparent also remains, even without blockchain. The CEO of Cascade8 explained the value of Blockframes, particularly for small and medium-sized producers:
So in Blockframes, you build your waterfall. You can do it yourself, or our team can do it for you, and after that, you do nothing except insert your receipts. In a few clicks, the system calculates how it has to be shared and edits the statements. … The value is in saving time on your statements and respecting your local and legal obligations because you have to do the statements, especially for authors at the European level – and a lot of producers don’t do it at the moment. … You don’t have to build your matrix in Excel because Excel is efficient, but when you have complex waterfalls, it can be a nightmare to build and, once it’s built, for other people to use it over time. Because the thing with movies is that you don’t have revenues just once – it’s 99 years, potentially. So, in 99 years, you have time to change your team, and by then, no one remembers why the Excel sheet was done that way or what shouldn’t be touched or changed. So it’s a bit more long-term sustainable than Excel.
Blockframes is designed to complement CAM services, as demonstrated by its 2024 partnership with Freeway Entertainment, one of Europe’s largest collection agents. According to the CEO, Blockframes, as an intuitive software tool, could also serve as an affordable alternative to CAM services for projects with budgets or configurations that do not require a CAM. It is also suitable for projects primarily focused on domestic revenues.
Overall, despite the relative success of blockchain-based DeFi applications in cryptocurrency markets up until 2021, our insights indicate that blockchain adoption in film revenue management has remained limited. While the services and visions discussed so far do not rely on a token-driven economic model, the following sections will explore applications that do.
Blockchain-based crowdfunding initiatives (Calladita, Decentralized Pictures)
As mentioned earlier, blockchain technology enables independent filmmakers to secure funding by issuing digital tokens to a broader pool of investors and supporters, providing a more distributed and participatory alternative to traditional financing models. This potential is particularly significant as the challenge of attracting private investment in European productions is widely recognized among film professionals, including our interviewees.
During our mapping, we identified several film-specific NFT storyworld production and launch platforms or marketplaces – such as Non-Fungible Films, Vuele, and Mogul Productions. These gained some publicity and online presence in the past, but appear to be largely defunct now.
While the successes of NFT technology in the early 2020s generated excitement – particularly with well-known Hollywood directors like Quentin Tarantino and Kevin Smith exploring its potential for their productions (Binns, 2022) – the market has since cooled. Films and film-specific content funded by NFTs now remain an evolving experiment, rather than a viable mainstream industry alternative. Nevertheless, we interviewed key figures from two successful initiatives that illustrate the potential of token-based film funding.
In 2022, Spanish director Miguel Faus used his 15-minute film to sell NFTs, funding a feature-length version of the story titled Calladita (The Quiet Maid). The NFTs successfully raised $750,000, granting token holders behind-the-scenes access, unreleased footage, and a say, through a DAO, in a 50% share of the film’s future earnings. While funding was later supplemented with an additional $100,000 from Steven Soderbergh through the on-chain film fund Decentralized Pictures (discussed later), Calladita is widely considered to be the first partially NFT-funded movie.
After completing a Master of Arts at the London Film School with a short film, Faus began seeking funding for his first feature film, which would expand on its story:
For a year and a half, I was knocking on every door that I could in sort of the traditional places where movies like these are financed. … I pitched to everyone in Spain. Then, I found an indie producer who wanted to produce the movie. And with him, as a partnership between him and me, we tried to get all the funding opportunities available, including public TV. We went everywhere.
As an independent filmmaker seeking funding during the pandemic and at the start of the NFT boom in 2021, he became captivated by the optimistic and revolutionary rhetoric surrounding blockchain and cryptocurrencies on social media:
From early 2021, I had two parallel paths, if you will. On the one hand, I was a struggling filmmaker who couldn’t get his first film financed. And at night, you could say I was a crazy NFT degen, connecting with people around the world and collecting some NFTs myself. All of the pessimism, closed doors, and anger that I saw in the traditional film world were completely different from all the optimism and possibility that I saw in the other world. And so, at one point, it became clear that since all the doors were closed, I could crack a window with an innovative project, and that’s when I thought of doing this crowdfunding through NFTs.
Faus hired developers to create an NFT minting page on his personal website, offering still frames (the first tier) and video shots (subsequent tiers) of the short film as NFT collectibles, along with voting rights on future earnings, in exchange for donations. He believes that the project succeeded because, by the time the crowdfunding campaign launched, he had already established himself as an insider within the NFT culture, particularly on Twitter. His active involvement in this culture as the film’s director contributed to the transparency and authenticity of the project’s goals and interactions with potential supporters: ‘I wasn’t just a filmmaker from outside who was coming in here to extract their liquidity … I was someone who was part of the gang, if you will, and was hoping for the gang to help him make this movie.’
As a pioneer in NFT crowdfunding, Faus faced practical challenges, including Spain’s tax policy, which applied the standard 21% value-added tax (VAT) to NFTs while certain traditional film industry revenues (e.g., theatrical earnings) benefited from reduced rates. Additionally, the pseudonymous nature of blockchain transactions made it difficult to verify recipient identities, preventing eligibility for tax reductions on service exports. Furthermore, at the time, sharing future film profits with token holders – a widely discussed use case for blockchain – was illegal unless conducted through a legally authorized financial institution.
In 2021, according to Faus, there were no infrastructural NFT crowdfunding services on the market that would offer operational models for launching NFT collectibles to raise funds or providing legal support. However, more recently, blockchain-based crowdfunding platforms and services have emerged, making such funding scenarios more accessible and convenient for independent filmmakers.
With effective tokenomics designed for this purpose, blockchain protocols can incentivize fan engagement during the early stages of film development, offering new avenues for audiences to engage with film culture more proactively and financially. These socio-technical systems act as community-driven coordination mechanisms, blurring the lines between B2B and B2C services, and creating value for both film professionals and fans by enabling direct social and monetary interactions between them. This introduces a participatory, networked approach to the filmmaking process, integrating stages like development, financing, and consumption – traditionally positioned at opposite ends of the linear film project value chain (Bloore, 2009).
As an example, we interviewed the CEO of Decentralized Pictures (DCP), a non-profit film crowdfunding and curating platform launched in 2022. It operates as a DAO on the open ‘arts and culture blockchain’ T4L3NT Net, which is based on a fork of the Tezos blockchain technology.
Functionally, DCP features a collaborative protocol where early-career filmmakers (‘submitters’) can present their project proposals to be assessed by the community. Registered users can vote on these projects, greenlight them for funding, and participate as ‘reviewers’ or ‘evaluators’ of proposals, earning reputation points in the process. Users with the highest reputation scores can apply to become ‘moderators’ or ‘administrators’, responsible for filtering out spam contributions. Over the past few years, DCP has funded several feature films, including facilitating additional funding for Calladita.
In addition to serving as a potential funding source for independent creators, DCP also provides independent filmmakers with early audience feedback and access to a network of mentoring film professionals throughout the development, production, and distribution stages. Individuals contributing to the community in various roles are rewarded with FILMCredits, the core incentive mechanism within the protocol. These tokens are envisioned to have multiple utilities on the platform in the future, such as enabling the purchase of digital merchandise in a DCP storefront. At the time of the interview, the utility of the token was mostly limited to amplifying votes on which movies should receive funding.
As the CEO said, blockchain enables three core benefits to the platform: fairness (facilitated by transparency of an immutable record of data), rarity (facilitated by token-based incentive mechanisms), and efficiency (cut in transaction costs). For example, here is how the CEO explained the efficiency of smart contract-based micropayments in distributing value among platform contributors:
We’re paying thousands of transactions and people micropayments, but conventional monetary systems can be quite costly – you can end up paying more than the transaction’s value itself to make the transaction. To send a check for a residual payment from a commercial you did 10 years ago, you get 10 cents, but the stamp is worth a dollar – it doesn’t make sense. So, it’s for the efficiency of dynamically paying out all the participants depending on how much they participate; they may make less than what it would cost in a conventional monetary system to pay them.
In terms of organizational structure, DCP holds 501(c)(3) non-profit status as a private foundation and is co-founded by American Zoetrope, an independent production company established by Francis Ford Coppola and George Lucas in 1969, now led by Roman, Sofia, and Gia Coppola. As stated on its website, DCP positions itself in contrast to traditional industry structures, aiming to create ‘new keys into the industry which have historically been held by the gatekeepers of Hollywood’. Despite its non-profit status, it shares a disruptive stance similar to that of the decentralized streaming platforms discussed in the next section.
B2C decentralized, blockchain-based streaming platform for audiovisual content (Myco, DCP+, White Rabbit)
At the time of the interview, DCP was exploring the launch of an in-app self-publishing streaming platform, DCP+, which would allow filmmakers to distribute their productions for free on-chain, while viewers could rent the content using FILMCredit tokens. The curation protocol already in use at DCP could be applied to design new discovery and placement mechanisms, based on the reputation of active community members (‘tastemakers’), to increase the visibility of diverse content from independent filmmakers.
As the CEO explained:
A lot of people express frustration with spending an hour or half an hour trying to find something to watch on Netflix, or Hulu, or wherever because the placement is sometimes … I don’t want to … I can’t take a stab at anything, but there are aggregators. There are marketing plays that go into some of the content that’s acquired by these places. So, there are deals that say ‘I want placement here for a certain amount of time’ or whatever, and what that does is that certain things get showcased and are more discoverable than others. It’s great for certain filmmakers and certain companies that have partnerships. But for an independent filmmaker who doesn’t get aggregated into that – call it supply chain – it makes their content much more difficult to be discovered by your average person who’s just on the platform browsing.
This aspect is just one example of how independent film professionals perceive the inequality and unfairness created by dominant digital distribution services and platforms in the market. Relatedly, the core idea behind decentralized blockchain-based audiovisual content streaming platforms is to streamline value creation by eliminating intermediaries like sales agents, distributors, and collection account managers, allowing the majority of the revenue to flow directly and transparently to the filmmaker. The heyday of NFTs and cryptocurrencies, indeed, saw a quick rise of various blockchain-based video-sharing and streaming platforms, often seen as potential alternatives to dominant Web 2.0 platforms like YouTube or Twitch. For example, we have previously documented the rapid emergence and decline of Odysee and Theta.tv (Järvekülg et al., 2024). Rather than viewing DCP+ as a commercial competitor to other Web3 streaming platforms, the CEO of DCP has described their vision as ‘more of a public service’ (Graves, 2024), aligning with the foundation’s non-profit status.
As of the end of 2024, the most talked-about commercially motivated, end-user-facing blockchain-based streaming platform for a mix of user-generated and professionally produced and licensed audiovisual content was Myco. In its marketing materials, the platform claims to be the ‘world’s largest Web3 streaming platform’, which, as the CEO stated in an interview, has ‘cracked’ the mechanics of ‘watch and earn’. In other words, users begin earning cryptocurrency rewards as soon as they start watching content on the platform.
The platform rewards viewers with 35% of the revenue generated from UGC and 35% from the revenues of Myco-owned or licensed content. The remaining revenue from UGC goes to the creators, while revenue from Myco-owned or licensed content goes to the company. The operation of this value distribution mechanism is transparently recorded on the blockchain. As the CEO commented: ‘So, rather than YouTube, where YouTube takes the ad revenue and keeps the majority of it for themselves, giving a small amount to the creators and the rights holders, we’re taking the ad revenue and then splitting it between the viewer and the rights holder or the creator on the other side.’
The native currency of the platform is the MContent token, but the platform also supports more traditional currencies in ‘grey areas’ where cryptocurrency is illegal. While the specifics of the tokenomics were still being developed at the time of the interview, the CEO shared that, rather than focusing on the monetary value of the token, Myco’s near-future vision with partners was to emphasize its governance value and in-app utilities by gamifying user consumption practices. The token can currently be earned by participating in the Myco ecosystem by either engaging with or creating content on the platform:
It’s in our interest to come up with as many inventive and interesting ways for the users to utilize their tokens within the Myco platform, and so, yeah, a lot of that will come out when we relaunch the token. But there’s a lot of governance and utility benefits that we’ll be rolling out within that.
According to its CEO and marketing materials, the platform has 22 million registered users and 7 million active users, most of whom are based in Asia and the Middle East. It also has over 2,000 ‘creators’ working on the platform, and has streamed more than 150 live sports events, licensed over 1,000 titles, and produced more than 50 original titles.
The company’s core value proposition for professional filmmakers and creators, therefore, lies in accessing new audience segments and creating an engaging relationship with them – especially in untapped markets like South Asia and the Middle East – and additional revenue streams through content syndication, licensing, and advertising, particularly in live sports.
Myco is an example of a company that favours full and rapid blockchain implementation, positioning itself as an alternative to dominant platforms and studios. Specifically, the platform integrates blockchain on the backend to reduce infrastructure costs related to storage and streaming, enhance transparency in distribution systems, and on the consumer-facing frontend through DeFi and cryptocurrency features. To support such a systemic vision, the company has partnered with blockchain and fintech companies such as Aptos, Livepeer, and Republic.
As the CEO explained:
You have to come at this from a holistic point of view: how can you build almost an ecosystem or studio model that’s driven by Web3, linking everything from the funding through the production to the distribution, monetization, marketing, and discoverability? You need to have a through line between all of that in whatever you’re doing. Otherwise, you’re still at the behest of, and the difficulties of, the traditional system.
Another ambitious, end-user-facing blockchain-based distribution company is White Rabbit, based in Norway. In 2021, White Rabbit initially launched as an anti-piracy browser extension, positioned as a P2P alternative to streaming platforms like Netflix. Using a complex mix of technologies, the plugin was designed to identify films sourced from various pirate networks and give users the option to pay rights holders directly before streaming the content. This concept was driven by the fact that most European films, which are almost exclusively publicly funded, are often inaccessible to audiences in a digital form, and filmmakers are forced into unfavourable deals with sales agents and dominant streaming platforms to achieve at least some visibility. Therefore, White Rabbit was seeking to capitalize on the film piracy market; there were 29.6 billion visits to film piracy websites in 2023 (MUSO, 2023, p. 3).
On the backend, White Rabbit developed an initial version of an open-source Registry of Film Rights, designed to facilitate B2B transactions among industry professionals – similar to companies like Content.Agent and Valunode discussed earlier. The adoption of a B2C film distribution app was expected to generate interest in the rights registry, envisioned to evolve into a B2B data hub collaboratively governed by independent filmmakers within a DAO-like structure.
However, the company’s disruptive approach provoked backlash from industry organizations, which accused White Rabbit of copyright infringement, ultimately forcing the company to discontinue the service in that form. As a result, by the end of 2024, White Rabbit had pivoted to developing a social film distribution app, testing it with select film titles for which it had secured distribution rights in various territories in partnership with K5 International. This new service targeted environmentally conscious film fans, allowing users to earn tokenized ‘digital trees’ as rewards for purchasing films and recommending them on social media, thereby creating a participatory economy of film tastemakers. Revenue from streaming would be divided between rights holders (60%), environmental charity (20%), and the company (20%).
Despite shifting to a more niche, tailored service, White Rabbit remained committed to driving systemic blockchain-based disruption and disintermediation within the film industry value chain.
As the CEO remarked: ‘I know that platforms are going to crash, and P2P is going to come back with a vengeance. That’s what the internet was made for; it’s what virality is all about: the exchange between one person and the next, and then to the next.’
White Rabbit exemplifies a company that has explored all the key blockchain use cases mentioned earlier: distributed databases for rights data, licensing and remuneration via smart contracts, tokenized copyright goods and services, and decentralized governance structures. Therefore, despite not having reached the scale of Myco, it stands as a prime example of the ‘radical blockchain dreams’ (Swartz, 2017) shaping the European audiovisual sector.
The CEOs of the two companies, however, expressed different viewpoints on regulations. The CEO of White Rabbit questioned the necessity of stricter regulations, commenting: ‘There is more data regulation than data innovation, which is frustrating.’ In contrast, the CEO of Myco emphasized that the sooner the major countries and institutions establish a stronger regulatory framework for Web3 – or at least signal that they are working towards one – the better. According to him, clear regulations can have a ripple effect, instilling confidence in investors and strategic partners that the industry is here to stay. While cryptocurrency has existed in various forms for over a decade, regulatory uncertainty remains a key concern for entrepreneurs and companies in the sector, especially for the ones who have already demonstrated the potential to scale across audiovisual content verticals – film, TV, UGC, live sports – like Myco.
Conclusion
This report has demonstrated how technology companies operating at the intersection of film and decentralization technologies are exploring – and continue to explore – the potential of blockchain to benefit the European audiovisual sector. These companies envision transformations across various stages of the film value chain, focusing on either B2B or B2C services.
We have shown how companies like Valunode and Content. Agent are working towards foundational distributed rights management infrastructures; how FilmConnect seeks to provide a connective tissue for professionals to collaborate across borders; how platforms like DCP explore new models of participatory financing, blurring the boundaries between traditional notions of production and consumption and potentially turning the linear film value chain into a more complex, opportunity-rich ‘value network’; how companies like Myco and White Rabbit reimagine content distribution and monetization within these value networks; and how companies like Filmchain and Cascade8 streamline revenue distribution processes that follow international sales, licensing, distribution, and exhibition stages.
We argue that the services and visions discussed in this report are not competing in a zero-sum landscape. Rather, they are complementary and mutually reinforcing. While operating across different layers of infrastructural development – from metadata standardization (logical infrastructure) to social and content delivery applications (consumer-facing layers) – they broadly share a long-term goal: to drive process innovations in European film markets and industries, build new service markets, reach new audiences, and diversify revenue streams for European filmmakers. In other words, together they form an emergent innovation ecosystem, where layered solutions can build upon one another.
Yet each of these visions faces practical challenges, including limited marketing budgets, legal uncertainties, infrastructural fragmentation, a lack of market readiness, or resistance from incumbent stakeholders – all of which reflect broader misalignments between the decentralized logic of blockchain and the historically centralized structures of the film industry. Given the relatively weak bargaining position of European filmmakers and rights holders in the global streaming economy, there is a clear opportunity – and need – for public sector authorities to adopt a systemic, enabling role.
While many of these companies have received seed funding through the Creative Europe programme, our findings suggest that this alone may not be sufficient. In addition to increased downstream investments, there is a need for systematic institutional support, coordination, and guidance – not only in terms of technical infrastructure but also in developing business models and legal compliance. We have highlighted several policy initiatives (e.g., EBSI, DGA, and MiCA) aimed at addressing these needs, but the operational linkages between them and the audiovisual sector remain underdeveloped.
Recommendations
Building on the findings of this report, the following set of policy recommendations outlines practical steps to support responsible and scalable blockchain adoption in the European audiovisual sector. Focusing on legal clarity, data interoperability, SME inclusion, and gradual implementation, these recommendations are intended to guide EU and national stakeholders in addressing systemic barriers while fostering innovation across financing, licensing, and distribution models.
Recommendations for policymakers in the EU and its small film territories
Develop legal frameworks for blockchain-based rights management
Our research identifies blockchain as a promising tool for improving rights management and transparency of revenue distribution. Governments could work on legal frameworks that recognize blockchain-based copyright contracting and registration. However, integrating blockchain into national copyright laws requires cross-border legal harmonization, which remains a challenge. An EU-wide initiative in this regard could prove fruitful.
Establish infrastructure for interoperable data
The EU should incentivize the widespread adoption of interoperable identifiers (such as ISAN, EIDR, HAND, and ISCC) and harmonized metadata standards across audiovisual value chains. These identifiers are essential for enabling blockchain-ready rights repositories and data exchanges. Incentives could include technical assistance programmes, conditional funding mechanisms, and metadata integration requirements for projects supported by public funding schemes.
Improve visibility and monetization for small producers
Policymakers should support the development and adoption of blockchain-based rights management protocols that simplify content licensing, improve traceability, and enable transparent revenue distribution. These systems can reduce small producers’ dependence on traditional gatekeepers and provide more direct access to international markets. Further, EU-funded pilot initiatives could focus on low-cost, scalable models specifically targeting creators from smaller or underrepresented territories.
Coordinate blockchain adoption through EU-level frameworks
To enhance legal clarity and foster innovation, EU policymakers should more explicitly integrate blockchain experimentation in the audiovisual sector into strategic frameworks such as EBSI, the DGA, and MiCA. While these initiatives contribute to greater legal certainty around blockchain adoption, their impact could be amplified through cross-sector task forces that bring together technology and audiovisual stakeholders. In addition, dedicated funding streams within Creative Europe and Horizon Europe would support alignment between regulations and technical infrastructures, particularly for SMEs and cultural entrepreneurs who often rely heavily on such support to get going.
Encourage hybrid and incremental adoption models
Rather than aiming for a complete industry transformation, policymakers should encourage hybrid models that incrementally integrate blockchain functionalities into existing audiovisual systems. This decreases the risk of fragmentation owing to a lack of integration between systems, while allowing blockchain functionalities to slowly get integrated.
Practical applications – such as rights verification, licensing automation, or smart contract-based micropayments – can offer tangible benefits with minimal disruption. Regulatory sandboxes and public–private partnerships could serve as testbeds for these modular innovations, especially for small-scale or cross-border collaborations.
Work with national film institutions to foster blockchain education and technical implementation
Policymakers should work with national film institutes or other relevant policy stakeholders in member states to educate creators, producers, and other rights holders on the practical relevance and potential benefits of blockchain for professional practices, such as cost savings in rights management and enforcement, new forms of participatory funding and community building, and more efficient revenue distribution. Systematic efforts are needed on the national level to harmonize these practices not only with national legislations but also with industry conduct and software/data management frameworks.
Work with industry guilds to foster blockchain education and adoption
Policymakers could also incentivize umbrella organizations – such as guilds representing producers, directors, screenwriters, and rights holders – to take an active role in promoting blockchain literacy and adoption among their members. These organizations can act as trusted intermediaries to translate abstract technological benefits into concrete professional advantages, from faster payments to more control over rights. Furthermore, these umbrella organizations can serve well in keeping a pulse on blockchain adoption, as well as the possible challenges associated with it, allowing for better communication channels among policymakers, blockchain-solution builders, and film industry professionals.
Enhance educational initiatives focused on copyright awareness and metadata literacy
In addition to fostering blockchain literacy, it is essential to strengthen copyright education and metadata competence across the creative industries. As production and distribution workflows grow more digital, fast-paced, and fragmented, creators and rights holders must understand not only how to use emerging technologies but also how to assert and manage their rights in complex legal and market environments. Blockchain-based tools may complement, but will not replace, the existing copyright framework in the foreseeable future, making it all the more important to understand the fundamentals of copyright law. Given the interdisciplinary nature of copyright metadata (spanning law, business, and technology), sector-specific training initiatives and competence hubs may be more effective than general approaches.
Encourage the diversification of financing streams through innovative use of blockchain and communities
As discussed in our report, small film territories often rely heavily on government grants and festival circuits, which are not sustainable long-term. Filmmakers could be empowered to look at and experiment with alternative financing models such as NFT-based film financing, revenue-sharing models through tokenization, or other funding methods involving a greater sense of community and closer relationships with audiences and fans. While the long-term feasibility of these novel financing mechanisms remains to be seen, initial attempts at financing film productions in this way have shown potential.
References
Berg, C., Davidson, S., & Potts, J. (2019). Understanding the blockchain economy: An introduction to institutional cryptoeconomics. Edward Elgar.
Binns, D. (2022). No free tickets: Blockchain and the film industry. M/C Journal, 25(2). https://doi.org/10.5204/mcj.2882
Biltereyst, D., Gipponi, E., & Miconi, A. (2024). Quo vadis, cinema Europaeum? Reflections on European cinema in digital times. Cinéma & Cie, Film and Media Studies Journal, 23(41), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.54103/2036-461X/22436
Bloore, P. (2009). Re-defining the independent film value chain. UK Film Council.
Bodó, B., Gervais, D., & Quintais, J. P. (2018). Blockchain and smart contracts: The missing link in copyright licensing? International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 26(4), 311–336. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eay014
Boshnakova, D., Miconi, A., & Toms, J. (2024). Introduction: Watching at Europe. In D. Boshnakova, A. Miconi, & J. Toms (Eds.), Hegemony: Platformization of Video (pp. 6-8). New Bulgarian University. https://zenodo.org/records/12805083
Ciriello, R. F., Torbensen, A. C. G., Hansen, M. R. P., & Müller-Bloch, C. (2023). Blockchain-based digital rights management systems: Design principles for the music industry. Electronic Markets, 33(5). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-023-00628-5
Davidson, S., De Filippi, P., & Potts, J. (2018). Blockchains and the economic institutions of capitalism. Journal of Institutional Economics, 14(4), 639–658. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137417000200
European Commission. (2022). Study on copyright and new technologies: Copyright data management and artificial intelligence. EU Publications. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/cc293085-a4da-11ec-83e1-01aa75ed71a1/language-en
Finck, M. (2018). Blockchains and data protection in the European Union. European Data Protection Law Review, 4(1), 17–35.
Finck, M., & Moscon, V. (2019). Copyright law on blockchains: Between new forms of rights administration and digital rights management 2.0. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 50, 77–108.
Finney, A. (2022). The international film business: A market guide beyond Hollywood (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Frischmann, B. M. (2012). Infrastructure. Oxford University Press.
Graves, S. (2024, March 28). Coppola-backed Decentralized Pictures to launch DCP+ film streaming service. Decrypt. https://decrypt.co/223700/coppola-backed-decentralized-pictures-film-streaming-service
Hjort, M., & Petrie, D. (2007). Introduction. In M. Hjort & D. Petrie (Eds.), The cinema of small nations (pp. 1–19). Edinburgh University Press.
Järvekülg, M., & Ibrus, I. (2024). Toward a decentralized copyright infrastructure as a ‘public service’: The case of Digiciti and Estonia. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 31(1), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2024.2318392
Järvekülg, M., Ibrus, I., & Rohn, U. (2024). Shifting from Web2 to Web3: The adaptive creator experiences on blockchain-based video-sharing and streaming platforms. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 30(3), 1290–1306. https://doi.org/10.1177/13548565231214184
Lane, A. M., & Platz, C. (2020). The other side of the ledger: Blockchain makes a new entry in the historical record of copyright law and technology. European Intellectual Property Review, 43(2), 83–97.
Milosic, K. (2015). GRD’s failure. Music Business Journal. http://www.thembj.org/2015/08/grdsfailure/
MUSO (2023). Piracy by Industry Data Review. https://www.muso.com/piracy-by-industry-report-2023
Novak, M. (2020). Crypto-friendliness: Understanding blockchain public policy. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy, 9(2), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEPP-03-2019-0014
Potts, J., & Rennie, E. (2019). WEB3 and the creative industries: How blockchain is reshaping business models. In S. Cunningham & T. Flew (Eds.), A research agenda for creative industries (pp. 93–111). Edward Elgar.
Rennie, E., Potts, J., & Pochesneva, A. (2019). Blockchain and the creative industries: A provocation paper. RMIT Blockchain Innovation Hub. https://doi.org/10.25916/5DC8A108DC471
Savelyev, A. (2018). Copyright in the blockchain era: Promises and challenges. Computer Law & Security Review, 34(3), 550–561.
Senftleben, M., Margoni, T., Antal, D., Bodó, B., van Gompel, S., Handke, C., Kretschmer, M., Poort, J., Quintais, J. P., & Schwemer, S. F. (2022). Ensuring the visibility and accessibility of European creative content on the world market – The need for copyright data improvement in the light of new technologies and the opportunity arising from Article 17 of the CDSM Directive. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-commerce Law, 13(1), 67–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3785272
Swartz, L. (2017). Blockchain dreams: Imagining techno-economic alternatives after Bitcoin. In M. Castells (Ed.), Another economy is possible (pp. 82–105). Polity Press.
Swartz, L. (2020). New money: How payment became social media. Yale University Press.
Szczepanik, P., Zahrádka, P., & Macek, J. (2020). Introduction: Theorizing digital peripheries. In P. Szczepanik, P. Zahrádka, J. Macek & P. Stepan (Eds.), Digital peripheries: The online circulation of audiovisual content from the small market perspective (pp. 1–31). Springer.
Tresise, A., Goldenfein, J., & Hunter, D. (2018). What blockchain can and can’t do for copyright. Australian Intellectual Property Journal, 28(4).