Toolbox for Blockchain and AI in Business Innovation

Toolbox for Blockchain and AI in Business Innovation: A Practical Guide for Film Professionals October 29th, 2025 Version 1.0 / Tatiana Chervyakova, Researcher, Lusófona University, Marta Vaz De Sousa, Researcher and Lecturer, Lusófona University, Manuel José Damásio, Project Coordinator, Head of the Film and Media Arts Department, Lusófona University, Indrek Ibrus, Professor, Tallinn University, Madis Järvekülg, Researcher, Tallinn University, Yannick Slenter, Consultant, Zaisan, Regitze Mai Møller, Project Manager, Filmby Aarhus, Ditte Brunø Søndergaard, Project Coordinator, Filmby Aarhus, Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Research Executive Agency. Neither the European Union nor the European Research Executive Agency can be held responsible for them. Technical references Project number 101094988 Project name CRESCINE - INCREASING THE INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS OF THE FILM INDUSTRY IN SMALL EUROPEAN MARKETS Project acronym CRESCINE Project starting date 1 March 2023 Project duration 36 months Deliverable No 4.2 Deliverable name Toolbox for Blockchain and AI in Business Innovation Type DEM — Demonstrator, pilot, or prototype Dissemination level PU Lead Organisation Filmby Aarhus Contributing Beneficiary(ies) Zaisan, Lusófona University and Tallinn University Related work package 4 Related task(s) 4.2 and 4.4 1 Document Change Log Version Date Author Reviewer(s) Changes 0.5 19/10 Tatiana Chervyakova, Marta Vaz De Sousa, Manuel José Damásio, Indrek Ibrus, Madis Järvekülg, Yannick Slenter, Regitze Mai Møller, Ditte Brunø Søndergaard N/A First draft of toolbox 0.6 23/10 Lúcio Studer Ferreira Internal review Changes to content 0.7 23/10 Luis Miguel Campos Internal review Changes to content 0.8 26/10 Regitze Mai Møller Changes made for final revision by Steering Committee 0.9 29/10 Steering committee, all members Approval of content – no changes 1.0 31/10 Inês Castaño Final versionprepared for submission to the EC 3 Toolbox for Blockchain and AI in Business Innovation Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Research Executive Agency. Neither the European Union nor the European Research Executive Agency can be held responsible for them. November 2025 crescine.eu A PRACTICAL GUIDE FOR FILM PROFESSIONALS Campo Grande Lisboa, Portugal DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17464671 Technical References Document Change Log Team 3 Statement of Originality 5 Disclaimer 5 Introduction 6 Blockchain for the Film Industry 7 Recommendations for Film Producers and Production Companies 7 Insights From Case Studies 8 Policy Recommendations 11 Navigating AI in Small Film Markets 12 Guidelines for Film Producers 12 Case Studies and Tools 16 Recommendations for Tech Companies Providing Innovative Solutions for the Film Industry 21 A Roadmap for AI Adoption in the AV/Film Industry in Europe 23 Blockchain’s Role in Transforming Europe’s Film Industry 24 Table of Contents 2 REGITZE MAI MØLLER Regitze Mai Møller is an experienced Project Leader and Industry Developer in the Danish film and creative sectors. She has a strong background in leading EU-funded innovation projects, managing talent development initiatives, and supporting both creative startups and established content production companies in film, games and animation. She is currently engaged in several Horizon Europe projects, where she focuses on innovation and collaboration within the audiovisual industry. DITTE BRUNØ SØNDERGAARD Ditte Brunø Søndergaard is an experienced Project Manager with a strong background in the media, film, and communication industries. She is especially skilled in production management, project coordination, communication planning, working within cross-functional teams, and managing projects from conception to completion. Currently, Ditte Brunø Søndergaard is managing multiple high-profile projects at Filmby Aarhus, with a focus on promoting innovation and collaboration within the media and film industries, both in Denmark and abroad. MADIS JÄRVEKÜLG Madis Järvekülg (PhD, Tallinn University) is a research fellow and lecturer at the Baltic Film, Media and Arts School (BFM) in Tallinn University, Estonia. His research interests include the social dynamics and evolution of digital culture and economies, with a particular emphasis on social media entertainment and the music industries. YANNICK SLENTER Avid technology enthusiast working on helping companies adopt the latest technologies. Throughout my career I have focused on breaking down complex topics around web3 and blockchain into relatable terms for people of varying levels of technical proficiency. Having managed a variety of projects over the past years has allowed me to do exciting things at the forefront of technology and given me the opportunity to be a regular speaker at web3 events. INDREK IBRUS Indrek Ibrus is Professor of Media Innovation at Tallinn University’s (TLU) Baltic Film, Media and Arts School (BFM), Estonia. He curates also BFM’s doctoral program. His research interests include media innovation, decentralization in media markets, emergence of contemporary metadata formats for audiovisual culture, studying the evolution of audiovisual markets by the means of data analytics. He has published on mobile media, media innovation/evolution, metadata evolution, trans-media and cross-media production. He is currently principal investigator in the Estonian governmentfunded research project “Public Value of Open Cultural Data”. He has been a co-editor (together with Carlos A. Scolari) of Crossmedia Innovations (Peter Lang, 2012), editor of Emergence of Cross-Innovation Systems (Emerald, 2019) and co-author (with John Hartley and Maarja Ojamaa) of On the Digital Semiosphere (Bloomsbury, 2020). Team 3 4 MANUEL JOSÉ DAMÁSIO Manuel José Damásio holds a Ph.D. in Media Studies (Universidade Nova de Lisboa) and did his aggregation also in communication at Minho University. He is an Associate Professor and the Head of the Film and Media Arts Department at Lusófona University, in Lisbon. He holds vast experience in consulting and production in several areas of the field of audiovisual and multimedia production. MARTA VAZ DE SOUSA Experienced executive producer with a demonstrated history of working in the film industry. Skilled in Film Production, Television, and Sales. Strong business development professional currently academically engaged in the fields of Communication and Film and Media Arts. TATIANA CHERVYAKOVA PhD candidate in Communication Science, Universidade Lusófona, Portugal, and research fellow in CICANT. BSc in Journalism (Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia), political journalism and media business majors, MSc in Media Management (Università della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano, Switzerland). Main research interests: political economies of media, media systems, socioeconomic factors in media consumption. 5 Statement of Originality Disclaimer 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. 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. What is a toolbox? This toolbox is a set of guidelines, case studies, and practical resources designed to help professionals in the European film industry navigate innovation in an evolving digital context. It offers clear, evidence-based guidance, encouraging informed and responsible use of emerging technologies. Access the onine toolbox at https://www.crescine.eu/ blockchain-ai Target Audience The toolbox is intended for film producers, production companies, and creative professionals seeking to understand and apply new tools for artificial intelligence and blockchain technologies. Content The toolbox highlights findings from across Europe on how producers are already integrating digital innovation into their work—examining the ethical and practical use of generative AI, the experimentation with new business and financing models, and the evolving landscape of blockchain. It provides practical recommendations for smaller film territories, outlining ways to adopt innovation responsibly, and showcases emerging tools and best practices that improve transparency, efficiency, and creative freedom within film production. The 2025 European Media Industry Outlook warns that Europe’s media ecosystem faces growing technological and commercial pressures from dominant global players, uneven digital infrastructure, and lagging investment in AI and content innovation. To thrive, European AV creators must embrace strategic tech adoption. This toolbox aims to strengthen the European film ecosystem by connecting research, policy, and professional practice – helping producers make confident, informed decisions in order to meet the demands of tomorrow. 6 Introduction by Regitze Mai Møller and Ditte Brunø Søndergaard tailored policy frameworks. Existing regulations, particularly the AVMSD, were designed in a pre-AI era and now struggle to accommodate the fast-evolving digital ecosystem. With regard to the text and data mining provisions in the CDSMD, the question arises whether these provisions, in particular the opt-out model for commercial AI training, can ensure authors’ rights and fair remuneration while also providing sufficient legal certainty for investment in culturally diverse, high-quality AI systems. As the sector faces transformative shifts, including the automation of creative roles and hyperpersonalized content curation, it becomes increasingly clear that relying solely on horizontal frameworks is insufficient. As mentioned in Council conclusions on the assessment of the legal framework for audiovisual media services and video-sharing platform services (C/2025/2954), strategic rethinking is required to ensure both the protection of public interest and the competitiveness of Europe’s cultural industries. While the rapid proliferation of technological innovations - most notably generative artificial intelligence in the audiovisual domain, projected to grow at an average annual rate of 85 percent through 2028 (European Commission, 2025) - may place European industry at a competitive disadvantage, it concurrently offers a substantive opportunity to achieve novel breakthroughs and enhance international standing. The IRIS 2024 report “AI and the audiovisual sector” (European Audiovisual Observatory, 2024) highlights how the convergence of diverse AI technologies create particular vulnerabilities for digital peripheries: The technologies include GenAI, Agentic AI, prompt-based streaming platforms with AI media content, such as Fable Studio´s Showrunner (Maas et al 2023), as well as “AI, ASR, TTS, NLP, NER, MT, summarisation, search and recommender engines, content classification, subtitling, vision and metadata extraction” (Rehm, 2020). Markets and regions holding marginalized positions within the global digital distribution ecosystem, especially those located far from major international media capitals (Szczepanik et al., 2020, p. 2) - where structural disadvantages including resource shortages, limited talent pools, and narrow consumer bases (Szczepanik et al., 2020, p. 4) become amplified by algorithmic bias that systematically disadvantages content from European media peripheries through recommendation bias, popularity effects, and language processing inequalities. European producers, namely the ones coming from small markets, are asked to navigate these troubled waters while balancing their personal concerns and professional restrictions with the need to leverage AI across their productions. Insights gathered from eight Innovation Pilots conducted under CresCine led to the following guidelines for film producers navigating this evolving landscape: 10 Recommendations for Producers from European small markets to approach AI 1. Dedicate time to researching the strengths and weaknesses of the tool you intend to use, as this will help you avoid any potential disappointments. 13 Unfortunately, there is no one-size-fits-all AI solution for projects. In smaller markets, this challenge becomes even more apparent when it comes to analytics for your scripts. Many tools make assumptions without considering the specific characteristics of your market, which are apparent to those familiar with it. To prevent dissatisfaction with the experience and the emerging technologies as a whole, ensure the tool possesses the necessary competencies. 2. Do not hesitate to contact the customer service team of the tools to fulfill the knowledge Self-education is valuable, but obtaining firsthand answers can help you make decisions and save time. While these answers may sometimes be biased or promotional, when combined with the critical knowledge you’ve gained about your project, they can either confirm that something is a perfect fit or indicate incompatibility. The materials shared by the team of technological tools can be valuable educational resources to help you stay updated on the latest developments in your field. Remember, just because something isn’t a good fit for you now doesn’t mean it won’t be helpful in the future. 3. Communicate with the decision-maker the allocation of the working hours for the research (or if you are the one, consider it in the working plans) The issue of high workloads is a fundamental challenge when discussing the professional limitations faced by small market producers in Europe. Research for the most urgent technological solution is often overlooked and tends to fall by the wayside, especially during busy production phases. And in these conditions, it is understandable to utilise the already explored and available instruments, which may be imperfect for another project. We recognise that a lack of knowledge can act as a barrier to innovation and project development. Considering the complex nature of film production, it’s essential to plan and allocate time for research in advance and to adhere to this schedule during quieter periods, establishing the beneficial nature of this knowledge. 4. Participate in testing, pilots, research, and hackathons (etc). This is self-explanatory. The pilots, such as those that took place in Crescine, are usually a money-free opportunity to engage in winwin experiments. These experiments foster collaboration between professionals, entrepreneurs, and academics, leading to solutions that are more insightful and better aligned with industry needs. By introducing your own objectives into environments that encourage unconditional experimentation, you can contribute to the technological advancement of various instruments that you may benefit from in the future (but mind recommendation 3). 5. Experiment with AI on tasks where you have a limited (or not foreseen) budget Several stages of film development can be overlooked or cut during 14 budget planning for various reasons. This is an opportunity to experiment. Often, crucial states such as marketing strategies and audience research do not receive the attention they need for the film to perform well. This is where AI tools can yield significant results. The demand for improvement creates a strong case for testing something new. 6. While navigating the technology, clarify your expectations. Do you want to uncover the precise truth, or are you seeking reliable anchors for guidance? This distinction will shape your approach. In interviews, we found discussions around the imperfections of technological tools, emphasising both their limitations and capabilities. Despite these imperfections, the right choice of tool depends on your specific goals. For the small markets, the lack of data significantly influences the scepticism toward the outcomes of the analysis. And realistically, now the available data on the market may not be enough for making precise statements. However, it retains the ability to inspire and offer alternative views and analytical frames that can be an essential contribution at any stage of production, from development to distribution. 7. Possess and maintain the decision-making power. Do not grant access to your IP or upload it without being conscious of the consequences of that. Always study opt-out options. The need for human control and the demand for oversight over AI outcomes have been consistently emphasized by professionals interacting with these tools. Rather than viewing AI simply as a tool, treating it as an external adviser and source of inspiration fosters better decision-making, ultimately ensuring that human judgment remains paramount. As we integrate AI into diverse sectors, maintaining a watchful eye ensures we address ethical concerns and mitigate risks, fostering a balance where technology and human intuition work together to navigate an increasingly complex landscape with responsibility and care. 8. Provide feedback on experiences and tools. Do not assume the tools are neutral! The time you spend sharing your satisfaction or dissatisfaction is a significant contribution to developing future instruments that can impact professional practices. 9. Think of security and copyrights. Be critical and aware of the bias of these tools. Be aware of the “cloud” danger – all content you feed the tool with is training the tool with your IP! We have encountered a great deal of skepticism and suspicion regarding these issues, and these concerns are valid. Take the time to understand the risks and consequences associated with each situation, and don’t hesitate to ask questions. This preparation can help you feel more informed and aware, reducing any surprises and concerns about the originality of your project. 15 10. Prioritise strategic over tactical choices Many interactions with innovations are not systematic due to professional constraints, such as issues related to time, money, and knowledge. A nonsystematic approach to implementing technological innovation can negatively impact both the experience and the outcomes. Strategic decisions should ideally be made at the organizational level. It is important to reflect on the ethical questions raised by the implementation of AI in your work and to consider your stance on copyright issues. These considerations will guide your strategic choices and help establish a roadmap to technology within your organization. References: Doan, R., Levy, A., & Storchan, V. (2025). Financing infrastructure for a competitive European AI. Groupe d’Études Géopolitiques. Retrieved from https://geopolitique.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Policy-paper-IA-EN. pdf European Audiovisual Observatory. (2024). AI and the audiovisual sector: Navigating the current legal landscape (IRIS Special 2024-3). Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/iris-2024-3-ia-legal-landscape/1680b1e999 European Audiovisual Observatory (EAO). (2025). SVOD Usage in the European Union – 2024 data (C. Grece & J.-A. Tran, Authors). Strasbourg: Council of Europe European Commission: Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology. (2025). The European media industry outlook : September 2025. Publications Office of the European Union. https://data. europa.eu/doi/10.2759/0606593. Feher, K. (2025). Generative AI, media, and society (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003591023 Finger, L. (2025). Artificial intelligence made in the U.S.A. – Can Europe learn from the past? Intereconomics, 60(3), 154–159. https://doi.org/10.2478/ie2025-0030 Finney, A., Tarran, B., & Coupland, R. (2025). AI in the screen sector: Perspectives and paths forward (Foresight Lab Report). CoSTAR Foresight Lab. https://www.bfi.org.uk/industry-data-insights/reports/ai-screen-sectorperspectives-paths-forward Maas, P., Carey, F., Wheeler, C., Saatchi, E., Billington, P., & Shamash, J. Y. (2023). To infinity and beyond: SHOW-1 and Showrunner Agents in multiagent simulations. Fable Studio. https://fablestudio.github.io/showrunneragents/ Malik, T. H. (2025, February 5). The philosophies behind the US-China tech war. LSE Business Review. Retrieved from https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/ businessreview/2025/02/05/the-philosophies-behind-the-us-china-techwar/ 16 Olugbade, O. In search of a global governance mechanism for Artificial Intelligence (AI): a collective action perspective. Glob. Public Policy Gov.5, 139–161 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43508-025-00113-z Rehm, G. (2020). Research for CULT Committee – The use of Artificial Intelligence in the Audiovisual Sector. European Parliament, Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies. https://www.europarl. europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2020/629221/IPOL_IDA(2020)629221_ EN.pdf Reisner, A. (2024, November 11). There’s no longer any doubt that Hollywood writing is powering AI. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic. com/technology/archive/2024/11/opensubtitles-ai-data-set/680650/ Senftleben, M. (2025). Win-Win: How to remove copyright obstacles to AI training while ensuring author remuneration (and why the AI Act fails to do the magic). Chicago-Kent Law Review, 100(1), 7–39. Retrieved from https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent. cgi?article=4480&context=cklawreview Szczepanik, P., Zahrádka, P., & Macek, J. (2020). Introduction: Theorizing digital peripheries. In P. Szczepanik, P. Zahrádka, J. Macek, & P. Stepan (Eds.), The online circulation of audiovisual content from the small and peripheral markets of Europe (pp. 1–34). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-030-44850-9_1 17 Case Studies and Tools: The pilots examined how innovation and technology – especially AI – affect film production in small European markets. Eight producers from the CresCine countries (Lithuania, Croatia, Portugal, Ireland, Flanders, and Estonia) participated. Six tested AI tools (including Largo.ai, an AI-based analysis tool for scripts and market assessment), while two worked with innovative financing models. Method Each pilot included one producer, one project under development and one innovation (see Figure 1 and Table 1). The sample selection was based on the country of origin and the degree of development of the project. The sample was selected among the 61 producers participating in the CresCine “Producers Club” activities. The selection procedure was as follows: one fiction project in the development phase with international potential was selected from each production company in the sample. We then followed a straightforward experimental approach O1 X O2 where the first observation moment O1 included an interview to assess the degree of willingness of the producer towards the use of the innovation, X marked the moment of the intervention, that being the use of the innovation and then O2 consisted of a second moment of interview to assess impact. Considering the pre-identified drivers of innovation, six producers were introduced to AI and two to innovative financing models. For the AI component, we partnered with Largo. ai, an AI-powered project analysis tool designed to support decision-making and improve script evaluation, market viability assessments and budgeting processes developed by the Swiss start-up Largo. The remaining two producers explored innovation in financing, focusing on alternative funding models. 18 Mini Case Studies – AI in Film 1. Largo.ai – Script & Market Analysis AI as a Story Consultant Several producers tested Largo.ai, an AI tool that analyzes scripts and predicts audience appeal and market performance. It provided feedback on story strengths and weaknesses, and helped producers prepare arguments for funders. The idea: Use AI to validate scripts and forecast potential performance. Benefit: Producers gain additional insights to support creative and financing decisions. Producer voice: “I think it confirmed our fears rather than it reads it right. I think it was, you know, if the tool was seeing it the same way as other people reading it. Therefore, I think it guided us to a problem that we have with the story.” (Producer, Int-F-1) Tool to explore: Largo.ai – AI-driven script and audience analysis. 2. AI for Audience Insights Knowing Your Viewers Producers experimented with AI tools to identify target audiences early in development. By analyzing comparable titles and datasets, they got clearer ideas of who their film might reach. The idea: Use AI-driven analytics to map out audience segments before production. Benefit: Improves investor pitches and informs distribution strategies. Producer voice: “That part of innovation is important to understand what we are doing because I don’t produce for myself. [...] I want to have an audience for all the projects that I do. [...] I’m not only saying that everything needs to be giant. What I’m saying is I need to know and understand who they are, where they are, what they want, what they need, and I know innovation in that.” (Int-L-8) Tools to explore: Cinelytic – Predictive analytics for box office and audience targeting. StoryFit – Audience insights and metadata analysis for film/TV. 19 Publikum — a service that helps creatives and circulation professionals explore the feelings their stories trigger in their future audience 3. AI for Administrative Efficiency Saving Time Behind the Scenes Some producers found AI useful in handling repetitive, time-consuming tasks such as sorting information, drafting reports, or organizing metadata. The idea: To automate routine tasks, so that producers can focus on creative and strategic work. Benefit: Reduces overhead and frees up resources for storytelling. Producer voice: It’s in a way, in an extra set of eyeballs which is useful (Producer, Int-L-1); “So I think innovative is just moving things forward with efficiency” (Int-L-6) Tools to explore: Yamdu, Allfred.io 4. Pilot Testing in Small Markets Fitting AI to Local Contexts The pilots revealed that most AI tools are trained on data from large markets, which limits their precision for small European countries. Producers stressed the need for localized tools. The idea: Adapt AI datasets to reflect small-language and niche-market realities. Benefit: Increases the accuracy and usefulness of AI predictions for smaller film industries. Producer voice: ”Maybe the one thing that I kind of think that it will not be so precise as it would be from some other market because we are a small market with a very small number of cases [...]” (Int-L-2) 20 Recommendations for Tech Companies Providing Innovative Solutions for the Film Industry: Prioritisation of curated and problem-oriented innovative offerings over generalisation Film production represents a unique mix of creative expression and complex operational challenges, often constrained by distinct market conditions. After our analysis, we noticed the danger of over-promising in the context of over-cluttering. Generic technological solutions are perceived as inadequate, potentially leading to discouragement and scepticism toward emerging technological solutions. Consequently, fostering the long-term adoption of innovations in film production necessitates a strategic emphasis on tailored solutions that directly address specific industry needs and problems. By cultivating a more trusting relationship between the user and the technological tool, a focus on customised solutions has the potential to mitigate the disillusionment often associated with overstated promises, fatigue it exposes, and foster sustained engagement with innovative tools. Provision of extensive details about the source of data and secure safety guarantees Mistrust sounded vivid during the interviews. The aura of mis/nonunderstanding of the data source and, hence, its legitimacy affects the producers. To dispel the image of the mystery “black box” (Int-F-4), but to obtain the positionality of a reliable external advisor, it is possible to reveal and disseminate the craft of innovation through the appropriate language, including the origins of data, limitations, and reflections on errors. This transparency and openness potentially bring confidence to producers, allowing them to make informed decisions based on empirical findings and trust the expertise of the instrument. Guidance is an essential part of the application journey During the interaction of the producers with the innovation, we observed that the lack of guidance negatively impacts the experience. The greater attention to the guidance through the experiment or along the way, the more it could contribute to the most effective outcomes and better use of the tool, and create a trusting environment, convincing hesitant producers to dedicate time and be involved in learning by establishing long-lasting relationships. Moreover, this recommendation considers the importance of continuously supporting education and knowledge dissemination among production professionals to keep them updated on technological solutions. Inform on the cultural bias and limits of your technology! For policymakers developing the legal framework for technological innovation in the European film market 21 Invite all the players to the discussion To develop more comprehensive and inclusive policy solutions, it seems essential that professionals throughout the production pipeline are heard during the revision and formulation of related policy documents. Engaging these experts who possess valuable insights and hands-on experience ensures that the policies reflect real-world challenges and opportunities within the industry. By actively soliciting input from a diverse range of stakeholders, policies will not only address current needs but also anticipate future developments. This collaborative approach fosters a more dynamic and effective policy environment that ultimately benefits everyone involved in the production process. Copyrights and authorship in focus The absence of a clear definition and proper acknowledgment of copyright protection leads to a significant gap in trust and technological enforcement. This uncertainty heightens producers’ concerns about adopting new technologies. Without robust frameworks to safeguard intellectual property and dissemination of the measures, creators may hesitate to invest in innovative tools and processes, fearing that their work could be easily exploited or copied without proper attribution or compensation. Consequently, this lack of protection not only stifles creativity and innovation but also impedes the overall growth of industries reliant on intellectual property, facilitating mistrustful relationships between industries. Establishing clear guidelines and protections would not only reassure producers but also foster an environment that encourages technological advancement and the responsible sharing of creative works. Ethical labour guidelines to protect roles that can be substituted and young professionals Technological advancements can lead to significant gains in efficiency and innovation; however, they also present challenges for professionals at all levels, particularly for those who are just starting their careers in fields susceptible to automation. As automation becomes more prevalent, it is essential to adopt a thoughtful and proactive approach to training and career development. This approach should focus on equipping future professionals with the skills they need to thrive in an increasingly dynamic job market that is growing toward maximum automatisation that affects the deeper knowledge and expertise on profession 22 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 29 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). 30 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 31 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 32 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 33 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? 34 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. 35 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. 36 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 nonprofit 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 wellestablished 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 37 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 38 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 nonprofit 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. 45 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 blockchainbased 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, enduser-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 Mycoowned 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 46 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 opensource 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. 47 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. 48 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. 49 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 blockchainbased 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 50 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 crossborder 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, fastpaced, 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 51 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. 52 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/10.54103/2036461X/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-a4da11ec-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/ 53 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/10.1080/1 0286632.2024.2318392 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. https://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. https://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. 54