Legislating “Cultural Diversity” for Global Streamers: Unpacking Policy Challenges from the European Union and Canada

Daphne Rena Idiz, PhD
University of Toronto Scarborough
Postdoctoral Fellow

Abstract

This paper examines the evolving role of global streamers in shaping European and Canadian production cultures, focusing specifically on regulatory challenges. By comparing the implementation of the revised Audiovisual Media Services Directive and the Online Streaming Act, it explores how prominence requirements and investment obligations are challenged in an online context. This paper employs an interdisciplinary framework and mixed-methods including qualitative interviews, interface ethnography, and legal doctrinal analysis. It concludes by arguing that further guidelines are needed to address the complex dynamics of global streaming services and highlighting that concerns at the forefront for producers remain unresolved by current policies.

Introduction

Over the last decade, global streaming giants, like Netflix and Amazon Prime Video, have become increasingly embedded in many local media industries around the world. This has caused local and regional policymakers to adapt their pre-existing audiovisual media policy, designed specifically for linear broadcasters, to also address streaming services. Yet, modernizing regulations developed for linear broadcasting is not without its challenges. The European Union (EU) has been at the forefront of this adaptive regulatory effort, with the 2018 revision to the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) serving as a key policy instrument aimed at ensuring cultural diversity in streaming services (European Parliament and the Council, 2018). More recently, in 2023, Canada’s Online Streaming Act became law and retrofitted its 1991 Broadcasting Act to also regulate global streamers (Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c.11).

Led by a group of 20 screen trade organizations representing thousands of screen industry businesses in Europe, Canada, Australasia and Latin America, a global call came in early 2024 from producers for their respective governments to regulate global streamers (Canadian Media Producers Association (CMPA), 2024). In it, the representatives stress the need for governments to enact regulations along specific “foundational principles” (CMPA, 2024) in order to ensure that global streaming giants contribute to local content production in a sustainable way. Offering a list of these guiding principles, the joint plea emphasizes the critical importance of independence, retention of intellectual property (IP) rights as well as fair and proportionate remuneration (CMPA, 2024). These demands underscore the widespread concern within the production community that regulation is vitally needed for global streamers to take on a sustainable position within the supply chain, but that current policies fail to adequately address the impacts of global streamers on local media industries. Considering that this call came after both the European Commission’s and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s (CRTC) regulations targeting global streamers, it is worth critically analyzing what exactly these policy measures entail and where they fall short.

The EU’s 2018 revision of the AVMSD introduced three key measures targeting streaming services: a 30% content quota for European works, a prominence requirement aimed at increasing the visibility of these works, and the option for EU member states to implement financial obligations for streaming services either in the form of direct investment or levies payable to a fund (European Parliament and the Council, 2018). These policy tools each raise particular challenges when it comes to their effectiveness in a nonlinear, algorithmically curated media environment (Idiz et al., 2021). Nevertheless, the EU’s regulatory influence—often described as the “Brussels Effect” (Bradford, 2020)—extends beyond its borders, with jurisdictions such as Australia and Canada looking to European precedents as they develop their own frameworks for streaming governance. Yet, as scholarship on policy transfer has shown, regulatory models are not always directly transferable (Eklund, 2023), particularly when national/regional/cultural media landscapes and industrial structures differ significantly.

In Canada, the Online Streaming Act represents the country’s first major legislative step toward incorporating “online undertakings” (Online Streaming Act, S.C. 2023, c.8) into its regulatory framework for broadcasters. Shortly after the Online Streaming Act’s assent, the CRTC, the media regulatory body in Canada, issued a fee regulation that resulted in large streamers having to pay a 5% fee (CRTC 2024a, Broadcasting Fees Regulations SOR/2024-46). This aspect of the regulation is already being challenged in court by streamers (Amazon.com.ca ULC v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FCA 217). The amended Broadcasting Act thus mandates contributions to Canadian content production and seeks to address the discoverability and prominence of Canadian programming (Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c.11: s. 3(1)). While these measures echo those in the revised AVMSD, its implementation of the financial contribution remains uncertain, particularly given the current legal challenges from streamers (Whittock, 2024).

This paper critically examines the regulatory approaches of the EU and Canada, identifying key challenges in applying policy tools designed for linear broadcasting to nonlinear global streaming services. By adopting a comparative approach of key concerns at the time of implementation in two distinct cultural and regulatory contexts, this analysis offers insights into the lessons that can be drawn from the Canadian and European experience, while also acknowledging the distinct cultural and industrial contexts that shape national media policies. Finally, this paper highlights issues at the forefront for local producers which remain unresolved by current policy.

Legislating “Cultural Diversity” for Streamers Through the Promotion and Production of Local Content

Global streaming services play an increasingly significant role in the production, distribution, and consumption of content, in turn contributing to the construction of cultural identities (Idiz et al., 2021). UNESCO defines cultural diversity as the “manifold ways in which the cultures of groups and societies find expression […] whatever the means and technologies used” (UNESCO, 2005). Parties to the 2005 UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (hereinafter CPDCE) may adopt measures aimed at enhancing diversity of the media (UNESCO, 2005: article 6(2)(h)). Both Canada and EU member states have ratified the CPDCE and as such are required to follow the Convention.

With the growing foothold of global streamers in both the EU and Canada, regional and domestic legislation has implemented measures intended to promote local cultural content, within the purview of cultural diversity. First, with the EU’s 2018 revision to the AVMSD, and more recently with Canada’s amended Broadcasting Act in 2023. In both cases, modernization of existing policy was attempted. It is worth stating that within these regulatory frameworks, “cultural diversity” entails both cultural and industrial aims and takes shape in the form of laws requiring the promotion and production of local content (Albornoz and García Leiva, 2019). These policies stem partly from concerns around the hegemony of US content, though these types of measures have also been critiqued for having nationalist and protectionist slants (see, for instance: Cooling, 2024).

EU cultural diversity policy has been described as primarily “inter-national,” regulating domestic media in relation to foreign products, while Canadian policy more often takes an “intra-national” approach, governing media within national borders (Zboralska et al., 2017). In the context of regulating US-based global streamers, this distinction is complicated as elements of both inter- and intra-national cultural diversity policy come into play. In other words, streaming regulation in the European and Canadian contexts requires streamers to promote and produce domestic media alongside foreign products, while also governing what these domestic products should entail through their definitions of “European works” (European Parliament and Council, 2018: articles 1(n), 3, and 4) and “Canadian content” (CRTC, n.d.), respectively.

In the European Union: The Revised Audiovisual Media Services Directive

The EU’s media industries operate within a complex and fragmented cultural and linguistic landscape, comprising 27 member states with 24 official languages. National public service broadcasters (PSBs) continue to play a central role in media production and distribution, alongside commercial broadcasters and local streaming services that target domestic markets. Per the revised AVMSD, streaming services “should, where practicable, promote the production and distribution of European works and thus contribute actively to the promotion of cultural diversity” (European Parliament and Council, 2010: recital 69).

“European works” are defined as works “originating in Member States” or “a European third state” or originating in a state that has a specific agreement or treaty with the EU or a co-production with the majority costs of production being borne by co-producers based in the EU (European Parliament and Council, 2018: articles 1(n), 3, and 4). Member States can also adopt a more detailed definition of “European works” for audiovisual media services under their own jurisdiction that is in compliance with EU law and aligned with the objectives of the AVMSD (Idiz et al., 2021).

With the 2018 revisions to the AVMSD, requirements on the promotion of European works for streaming services were established. Per article 13(1), Member States must ensure that streaming services secure at least a 30% share of European works in their catalogues and ensure prominence of those works (European Parliament and Council, 2018). The revised AVMSD article 13(2) affirms Member States’ ability to require media service providers to contribute financially to European production (European Parliament and Council, 2018). This can take different forms, including “direct contributions to the production of and acquisition of rights in European works [or] levies payable to a fund, on the basis of the revenues generated by [streaming services] that are provided in and targeted towards their territory” (European Parliament and the Council, 2018: article 13(2)). Member States have the option to allocate financial contributions to support European works broadly. However, in practice, these investment obligations are likely to primarily benefit domestic productions and content acquisitions. This outcome is largely driven by the role of national organizations, such as film and television funds, which are responsible for awarding financial support for audiovisual content creation and production (Idiz et al., 2021).

In terms of their practical functionality in EU law, the quota for European works and prominence requirement are subject to the country-of-origin principle to the effect that the Member State where the streamer is established governs these rules across the EU (Idiz et al., 2021). Whereas the possibility of Member States to leverage a financial contribution for European productions means that “a Member State is also allowed to impose such financial obligations on media service providers established in another Member State that targets its territory” (European Parliament and Council, 2018: 13(2)).

The revised AVMSD’s deadline for national transposition was in September 2020, with article 13(1) on quotas and prominence as an EU-wide requirement, while the implementation of article 13(2) regarding financial obligations was left to the discretion of Member States (Idiz et al., 2021).

In Canada: The Online Streaming Act

Canada’s media landscape includes a national PSB (the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or CBC), commercial broadcasters, and community media. Laws and policies such as the Broadcasting Act and the Canadian Content (CanCon) regulations include specific mandates related to bilingualism—requiring support for both official languages (English and French)—as well as for the production of programming that reflects Indigenous cultures and is in Indigenous languages (Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c.11). Canadian cultural policy has also historically been concerned with the perceived threat of US cultural imperialism (Mirrlees, 2019), with the discourse around US-based global streamers very much in continuity with these concerns.

On April 27, 2023, the Online Streaming Act’s amendments to the Broadcasting Act brought renewed relevance to it by putting digital platforms under the CRTC’s governance (Government of Canada, 2023). One of its primary objectives was updating the definition of CanCon to reflect the evolving digital media landscape. Recent consultations sought to clarify the criteria that determine what qualifies as Canadian content under the new framework (CRTC, 2024b). Until the CanCon definitions are updated (public consultations on this matter recently closed), the existing point system is used to determine Canadian content. This system uses criteria such as the nationality of the key creative team and the national origin of production expenses to establish what counts as CanCon (CRTC, n.d.).

Per section 2(1) of the amended Broadcasting Act, “broadcasting undertakings” now explicitly include “online undertakings” (Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c.11). These are defined as “an undertaking for the transmission or retransmission of programs over the Internet for reception by the public by means of broadcasting receiving apparatus” (Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c.11: s. 2(1)), thereby ensuring that streamers now fall within the Broadcasting Act’s scope.

Like the revised AVMSD, the amended Broadcasting Act introduces discoverability and prominence requirements. Section 3(1)(q)(i) mandates that online undertakings should “ensure the discoverability of Canadian programming services and original Canadian programs, including original French language programs, in an equitable proportion” (Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c.11). Similarly, section 3(1)(r) requires that platforms “shall clearly promote and recommend Canadian programming, in both official languages as well as in Indigenous languages, and ensure that any means of control of the programming generates results allowing its discovery” (Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c.11).

Beyond content promotion, the CRTC, under its new authority from the revised Broadcasting Act, introduced financial obligations for digital platforms (CRTC’s Regulatory Policy 2024-121). A key provision is the requirement that streaming services contribute to Canadian content production. As of June 2024, the CRTC has mandated that platforms allocate 5% of their annual Canadian revenues to a fund supporting local production. However, as mentioned, CRTC’s regulation is facing legal challenges. In December 2024, the Federal Court of Appeal granted a stay, or pause, on the 5% contribution until the court makes a determination on the streamers’ application and appeal (Amazon.com.ca ULC v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FCA 217). Canada’s regulatory approach, like the revised AVMSD, seeks to ensure that global streamers contribute to the sustainability of local media industries and visibility of local content.

Methods

This paper employs an interdisciplinary approach, using a theoretical framework of information law, media studies, and platform studies. It’s mixed-methods combine document review and analysis, qualitative interviews in the EU, and “interface ethnography” (Ortner, 2010) in Canada. It builds significantly on a previous research project conducted in the EU which focused on the 2018 revision of the AVMSD and included a case study of the Netherlands, which holds the important role of country-of-origin for notable global streamers like Netflix, as they are headquartered in Amsterdam (Idiz et al., 2021). The research, interviews data, and findings from this former article have been revisited and brought into dialogue with the Canadian context here, to offer a valuable comparative perspective.

Documents were analysed to identify the legal requirements under the revised AVMSD’s article 13 and the amended Broadcasting Act’s provisions targeted at streaming services, their goals, as well as the challenges facing media industries and regulators in the EU and Canada. The corpus of documents analysed consisted primarily of EU and Canadian media legislation and regulation, policy documents and reports, press releases from global streamers, and media trade press.

Empirical data was gathered through qualitative interviews in the EU and “interface ethnography” (Ortner, 2010) conducted at Canadian Industry events. In the course of the aforementioned research project, a series of semi-structured, qualitative interviews were conducted in early 2021 at the time of the revised AVMSD’s implementation with stakeholders from the Dutch media industry, including: Netflix, the Dutch Media Authority, the Dutch Foundation for Public Broadcasting, the Association of Dutch Audiovisual Content Producers, the Netherlands Audiovisual Producers Alliance, the Netherlands Film Fund and an audiovisual consultant (Idiz et al., 2021). These took on average one hour and were recorded, transcribed and analysed through close reading and inductive development of themes. Finally, industry events were attended in January 2025 (including a TIFF Industry Forum and the Digital Media at the Crossroads (DM@X) conference) where the author conducted “interface ethnography” (Ortner, 2010). Ortner (2010) uses this term to describe the methodological process of attending industry events, in order to observe the industry’s discourse and concerns, as well as unpack the how it presents itself to the public and conceives of ongoing transformations.

From Theory to Practice: Streaming Regulation Challenges in the EU and Canada

In this section, I focus specifically on challenges related to the prominence and financial obligations in the revised AVMSD and amended Broadcasting Act. While the revised AVMSD also includes a quota requirement which functions in complement to its prominence requirement, the amended Broadcasting Act does not. In analyzing these different policy tools, I provide valuable insights into the discourse and issues surrounding them at their time of implementation. Finally, I outline critical challenges not yet resolved by the current policy measures.

The Trouble(s) with Requiring Prominence or Discoverability Online

Prominence is a policy tool originally designed for linear transmission, with significantly different modes of distribution and consumption than nonlinear services (Lotz, 2019: 29). In other words, requiring prominence on a linear channel (e.g. through prime time slots reserved for local content) is very different from requiring the prominence of local content on a nonlinear streaming catalog, that is personalized to each individual user and curated by algorithmic recommender systems. To improve the likelihood of consumption of European and Canadian content, their prominence is required by the revised AVMSD and amended Broadcasting Act respectively. However, the technological infrastructures of streaming services render prominence difficult to implement and monitor, presenting both challenges and opportunities for policy-makers.

Because streaming catalogues “are interactive, curated databases” (Lobato, 2018: 243), most streaming subscribers “experience only the fragments [...] pushed forward to them algorithmically” (Lobato, 2018: 251). To increase the likelihood of exposure to local content, prominence is therefore necessary. However, the personalization and algorithm-driven recommender systems characteristic of streamers greatly complicate the practical implementation of a prominence requirement. To illustrate, Netflix’s recommender system is a collection of algorithms that personalise aspects of each subscriber’s homepage (Gomez-Uribe and Hunt, 2015: 2–3; Smith and Telang, 2016: 8; Chandrashekar et al., 2017; Riley et al., 2018). Furthermore, streamers are constantly updating their interfaces. As such, “how prominence can be achieved today may be very different from how it can be achieved in five years” (García Leiva and Albornoz, 2021: 274).

The revised AVMSD defines prominence in broad terms as any measure facilitating discoverability of European works (European Parliament and Council, 2018: recital 35). In contrast, the amended Broadcasting Act mandates that streaming services should “ensure the discoverability of Canadian programming” (Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c.11, s. 3(1)(q)(i)) and “clearly promote and recommend” (Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c.11, s. 3(1)(r)) this content, without providing further guidelines on how prominence/discoverability will be measured. It has been argued that prominence requirements are an important policy instrument to foster exposure diversity, as personalization algorithms can be instructed to give prominence to local works (Helberger et al., 2018). However, media authorities in both the EU and Canada have emphasized that they will not ask for specifics on how the algorithms work nor interfere with these algorithms (Idiz et al., 2021; Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c.11, s. 9.1(8)).

Because the revised AVMSD and the amended Broadcasting Act have such open definitions for prominence/discoverability, it is possible for streaming services to make limited changes without significantly increasing the visibility of local content. Essentially, there is no real way to enforce these prominence requirements based on the legislative language currently used nor monitor compliance. Furthermore, measuring the effectiveness of these measures would require individual level content consumption data of every streaming subscriber, which is neither likely to be shared by streamers nor realistically feasible for media regulators to assess (Idiz et al., 2021).

Implementing prominence and discoverability in a streaming context is a real challenge for policymakers. As it stands, the links between the revised AVMSD’s and amended Broadcasting Act’s provisions and their purported objectives of discoverability and prominence are tenuous, with further guidelines from policy-makers, data transparency from streamers, and monitoring of the outcomes in terms of exposure to and consumption of local content necessary to achieve these aims.

Follow the Money: Investment Obligations vs. Levies

The revised AVMSD’s article 13(2) describes two different ways Member States can implement financial obligations for streaming services: direct investment into European productions and/or levies payable to a fund. Conversely, the CRTC has implemented a levy, with streamers required to contribute 5% of their annual Canadian revenues to a fund to produce Canadian Content (Benchetrit, 2024). The fundamental difference between the two forms of financial contribution is who controls the funding, which has direct implications for the type of production incentivized. This may well be a contributing factor to CRTC’s regulation being challenged while the European Commission’s was not.

Research from the EU illustrates these differences. Taking for example the case of the Netherlands, where the Dutch Media Authority opted for a direct investment, the discussions preceding this decision in the industry were highly polarized (Idiz et al., 2021). PSBs, funding organizations, and more arthouse/indie producers had a strong preference for a levy, which they felt would enable more control over allocating funding to more diverse productions (Idiz et al., 2021). Meanwhile, streamers and larger more mainstream production companies preferred a direct investment scenario, which they claimed gave more incentive for streamers to actively engage with the local media industries (Idiz et al., 2021). Ultimately, it was decided that streamers must invest 5% of their Dutch annual turnover into Dutch productions (CMS Netherlands, 2023). Critically, the law requires that at minimum 60% of these productions come from independent producers (CMS Netherlands, 2023). As a point of comparison, in France, the investment obligation is much higher, with streamers required to invest 25% into French productions (Keslassy, 2025).

Unlike its European counterparts, CRTC in Canada opted for a 5% levy payable to a fund supporting Canadian productions (see Summary of the allocation of audio-visual online undertakings’ base contributions for how the 5% will be allocated). This approach has proved unpopular with streamers, who are in the process of challenging this decision, particularly the funding of local news requirement (Whittcock, 2024). Within the Canadian levy, CRTC has a directed a portion of these funds towards Certified Independent Production Funds (CIPF) as well as Diversity and Inclusion Funds (see Summary of the allocation of audio-visual online undertakings’ base contributions). In the case of the latter, the CRTC mandated a 0.5% “allocation to any or a combination of the Black Screen Office (BSO) Fund, the Canadian Independent Screen Fund for BPOC creators (CISF), and the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund” (BAF).” However, the current language leaves it to streamers to decide how to allocate these funds, to the dismay and concern of these groups. This was a point discussed at a dedicated panel at the 2025 Digital Media at the Crossroads (DM@X) conference, as illustrated by its description in the program:

Community members have identified a number of issues arising from the CRTC decision to leave how the allocation will be directed entirely up to the discretion of the streamers. What is at stake and what should the CRTC be doing as it moves forward in developing the new regulatory framework? (DM@X, 2025).

Specific concerns raised were around the uncertainty of what would be received by each fund, the risk that certain funds would receive more than others regardless of need, and the challenges for year-to-year budgeting and planning without clearer estimates of the expected contributions (DM@X, 2025). Furthermore, there is additional leeway as the CRTC has stated that streamers would have “some flexibility to direct parts of their contributions to support Canadian television content directly” (Whittock, 2024) therefore it remains unclear exactly how the streamers will be required to contribute financially to Canadian productions, and how much of this can be done through direct investment. CRTC has left the door very much open for future proceedings to consider “direct expenditures on certain types of programming” (CRTC 2024-121, para 94). It is also explicitly stated that “the Commission is not convinced that foreign online undertakings are entirely unable to access funds” (CRTC 2024-121, para 149).

Summary of the allocation of audio-visual online undertakings’ base contributions

These perspectives demonstrate the tension between the cultural and industrial side of policies that fall under the mandate of cultural diversity. Since levies likely promote the production of cultural/arthouse/equity-deserving content whereas direct investment stimulates more mainstream productions, stakeholders naturally align with their mandates and interests. Thus, the objectives of cultural diversity may be best served by a policy mix, since source diversity relies upon a “media system [that] is populated by a diverse array of content providers” (García Leiva and Albornoz, 2021: 268).

The Elephants in the Room: Securing Independence, IP rights, and Data Transparency

Within the policy objective of stimulating local production, there are critical concerns that remains unresolved by current legislation and regulation: defining local works in a way that secures the independence of producers, and consequently their retention of IP rights, and increasing data transparency from streamers. The definitions of “European works” (European Parliament and Council, 2018: articles 1(n), 3, and 4) and “Canadian programming” (CRTC, n.d.) are fundamentally important as these underpin both the prominence/discoverability requirements as well as the financial contributions from streamers.

Independent production is seen as integral to cultural diversity and pluralism (Cabrera Blázquez et al., 2019: 8). UNESCO’s CPDCE (2005) specifies that a means of protecting and promoting cultural diversity is “providing domestic independent cultural industries [...] effective access to the means of production, dissemination and distribution of cultural [...] goods” (article 6). While producers have long dealt with challenges related to accessing funding whilst remaining independent from broadcasters and other large media conglomerates, the development of global streamers presents new obstacles (Doyle, 2019: 146). To illustrate, research in Europe has mapped out three distinct audiovisual production business models as related to IP rights: the “independent production model,” the “broadcaster-distributor model,” and the “streaming model” (Meir and Mitric, 2025: 2). Crucially, while the former two allow producers to retain most or some IP rights related to content they produce, the latter strips producers of them entirely in exchange for a higher upfront payment (Meir and Mitric, 2025: 2-3).

The European Producers Club (EPC) defines independent producer as an “entity [...] which is independent of broadcasters, VOD [video-on-demand] services and other audiovisual media service programme providers” (European Producers Club, n.d.). However, while the 2010 AVMSD defines independent producers as independent from broadcasters and reserves a proportion of broadcast for independent productions (European Parliament and Council, 2010: recital 71), the 2018 revision offers no such points related to streaming services (Idiz et al., 2021).

The amended Broadcasting Act provides some considerations around independence and how it may be integrated within the definition of Canadian programming. Specifically, it states that the Commission shall “consider” the following in issuing this definition:

(a) whether Canadians, including independent producers, have a right or interest in relation to a program, including copyright, that allows them to control and benefit in a significant and equitable manner from the exploitation of the program
[…]

(d) the extent to which persons carrying on online undertakings or programming undertakings collaborate with independent Canadian producers, with persons carrying on Canadian broadcasting undertakings producing their own programs, with producers associated with Canadian broadcasting undertakings or with any other person involved in the Canadian program production industry, including Canadian owners of copyright in musical works or in sound recordings (Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c.11: s. 10 (1.1))

This is reiterated in the policy directions issued by the Government of Canada to the CRTC which direct the definition of Canadian programming to “consider, as it relates to audio-visual programming, the vital role of Canadian independent producers and of the Canadian creative resources that are being used by both Canadian and foreign broadcasting undertakings” (Canada Gazette, 2023). Because the definition of Canadian programming is still forthcoming, it is too early to say whether this aspect will be sufficiently addressed.

Securing the independence of producers is of vital importance, especially in the context of global streamers. Because exclusivity is a cornerstone of streaming TV, cultural producers are generally left with limited IP rights and residuals (Idiz et al., 2021: 436; Meir and Mitric, 2025). Historically, IP ownership was split between various stakeholders (including production partners) and residuals were paid based on performance (Cunningham and Craig, 2019: 100). However, today’s streaming TV services often employ a “work-for-hire model” (Lacourt et al., 2023: 19), which conceives of producers as employees. The crux of the issue is that “once a work is considered one made for hire, the authorship and copyright ownership belong to the employer or the person or entity who commissioned the work” (Lacourt et al., 2023: 20).

This has been cited as a major concern for producers, both in the European context (EPC, n.d.) and Canada (CMPA, 2024). At an industry-level, this brings up concerns that an unintended effect of increased local streaming productions could well be moving this valuable IP “into the coffers of multinational companies” (Koljonen, 2022: 29). In other words, without regulation that secures the independence of producers and their retention of IP rights, cultural diversity policy increasing the production of local works by streamers may prove detrimental to the industry’s long-term sustainability by eroding producers’ rights to the works they produce. Analyzing these concerns, scholars have argued that these unequal contractual relations and unproportionate remuneration can be mapped more broadly onto an increasing dependence of cultural producers on big tech companies across the online screen industries (Idiz and Poell, 2024).

A related concern specific to the film industry is around windowing, as streamers have historically been unwilling to wait for films to have a theatrical release before making them available online (Roxborough, 2023), challenging producers as well as others in the distribution supply chain. This was raised in the Canadian context as a major challenge for Canadian producers, funders, and cinemas (TIFF, 2025).

Finally, it has been argued that for producers, gaining more transparency from streaming services in the form of performance data is critical (Idiz et al., 2021; Idiz and Poell, 2024). This is needed not only for contractual negotiations but also to ensure fair and proportionate remuneration based on viewership. Yet streamers are notoriously walled gardens when it comes to data, hesitant to release anything that does not serve them strategically (e.g. the Netflix engagement reports). This leads not only to a significant power imbalance between global streamers and producers but also creates a lack of a level playing field in industries where some segments are required to disclose viewership figures (e.g. PSBs) while others are not (Idiz et al., 2021).

A potential benefit of regulatory measures targeting streaming services is thus in their reporting obligations. For instance, In Canada, CRTC states:

In addition to the determinations set out in this regulatory policy, the Commission will require applicable online undertakings to participate in annual broadcasting surveys, providing information on revenues, contributions and programming to the Commission via its Data Collection System. This information must be submitted along with reviewed financial statements, reporting its annual Canadian gross broadcasting revenues and providing information on revenue allocation and any inclusion/exclusion of revenues (CRTC 2024-121: para 184)

As such, streamers will have to provide data (exactly what type of “programming” information remains to be seen) in Canada, and this aspect was not challenged in Court. Following from this, it is possible that producers may be able to get access to such data via, for instance, freedom of information requests.

Conclusions: Chasing the Dream of Future-Proof Policy?

Global streamers occupy a major role in media industries around the world, and their self-produced exclusive content, has significant implications for cultural diversity and local producers. This article has examined the evolving role of global streaming services within European and Canadian production cultures, focusing on policy frameworks, industry dynamics, and the implications for independent producers. Through an analysis of recent regulatory developments, particularly the implementation of prominence requirements and investment obligations, I have highlighted key challenges facing policy-makers as well as disconnects between the policy goals and the lived experiences of producers.

This article contributes to comparative research on the governance of global streaming services, specifically regional and national audiovisual policy related to Netflix (Kostovska et al., 2020; García Leiva and Albornoz, 2021). It also demonstrates how global streamers further complicates the discussion around supply-side regulations for cultural diversity objectives (Valcke, 2011; Napoli, 2011; Irion and Valcke, 2015; Burri, 2016; Helberger et al., 2018). As policymakers strive for “future-proof, flexible, and sustainable” (DM@X 2025) policy models in this rapidly evolving global digital media environment, it is worth questioning whether new policy tools that account for the unique affordances of global streamers may be needed. Furthermore, policy-makers should strive to close the gap between regulatory objectives and the actual concerns of producers in the industries subject to these regulations, which—as demonstrated by this paper—are not always aligned.

This research underscores the potential for global streamers to play a more sustainable role in the audiovisual value chain. However, this requires targeted regulation to address critical issues such as intellectual property rights, fair and proportionate remuneration, and data transparency. The problematic link between cultural diversity policy and eroding producer IP rights in the streaming production model cannot be overstated. While measures such as prominence requirements and investment obligations aim to support European and Canadian cultural diversity, their effectiveness remains uncertain in an algorithm-driven, nonlinear media landscape. The lack of clear guidelines on prominence and the varying interpretations of financial obligations across jurisdictions further complicate their impact, evaluation, and enforcement.

This study contributes to ongoing debates on platform governance by illustrating how policy frameworks designed for traditional broadcasting struggle to accommodate the operational logics of streaming services. While the European regulatory approach sets an important precedent, Canada’s recent legislative shifts, including the Online Streaming Act, present a valuable point of comparison—particularly in its efforts to recognize and safeguard independent producers. Yet these issues are far from resolved, and for cultural producers the retention of IP rights and related abilities to financially exploit their own content and understand its performance when producing for global streamers is vital.

The regulatory frameworks in the EU and Canada highlight the need for adaptation and negotiation between policymakers and the industry when conceiving of policies for continuously-evolving digital platforms. Future research should assess the long-term impact of these regulatory measures, particularly as reporting requirements come into effect and enforcement mechanisms take shape. Comparative studies between European and Canadian markets, as well as with other jurisdictions around the world, will be crucial in identifying best practices and gaps in existing policies. Close attention should be paid to the forthcoming CanCon definitions as well as the outcome of streamers’ legal challenge to CRTC’s 5% levy, as both will have significant ramifications for Canadian producers.

Finally, ongoing scrutiny of data transparency and copyright laws will be essential, especially as concerns around generative Artificial Intelligence loom over the creative industries.

References

Albornoz, L., and García Leiva, M. T. (eds.) (2019, Audiovisual Industries and Diversity: Economics and Policies in the Digital Era. 1st ed. London; Routledge.

Amazon.com.ca ULC v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FCA 217, Accessed 12 February 2025. 

Benchetrit, J. (2024), ‘Foreign streamers must pay into fund to boost Canadian content, CRTC says’, CBC News, Accessed 12 February 2025.

Bradford, A. (2020) The Brussels Effect: How the European Union Rules the World. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c.11, Accessed 12 February 2025.

Broadcasting Fees Regulations SOR/2024-46, Accessed 12 February 2025.

Burri, M. (2016), ‘Cultural diversity in the internet age: In search of new tools that work’, DigiWorld Economic Journal Communications & Strategies, 1:101, pp. 63–85.

Cabrera, B., Francisco, J., Cappello, M., Fontaine, G., Talavera, M. J. and Valais, S. (2019),‘The promotion of independent audio-visual production in Europe’, IRIS Plus, Strasbourg: European Audiovisual Observatory, May, Accessed 1 January 2021.

Canada Gazette (2023), ‘Order Issuing Directions to the CRTC (Sustainable and Equitable Broadcasting Regulatory Framework): SOR/2023-239’, Accessed 12 February 2025.

Chandrashekar, A., Amat, F., Basilico, J. and Jebara, T. (2017), ‘Artwork personalization at Netflix’, Netflix Technology Blog, 7 December, Accessed 1 May 2021.

CMPA (2024), ‘CMPA joins global screen industry in joint call for regulation of streamers and intellectual property protections’, Accessed 12 February 2025.

CMS Netherlands (2024), ‘Major VOD services must invest in Dutch productions starting January 2024’, Lexology,   Accessed 12 February 2025.

Cooling, C.R. (2024), ‘Cultural Policy as the Articulation of Cultural Hegemony: The Nationalist Dreams and Desires of Canada’s Online Streaming Act’, CRTC, Accessed 12 February 2025.

CRTC (2024), ‘Consultation on Canadian content for TV and online streaming services’, Accessed 12 February 2025.

CRTC (2024a), ‘CRTC requires online streaming services to contribute to Canada’s broadcasting system’, News Release, Accessed 12 February 2025.

CRTC (n.d.), ‘So what makes it Canadian?’, Accessed 12 February 2025.

CRTC 2024-121, ‘Broadcasting Regulatory Policy CRTC 2024-121’, Accessed 12 February 2025.

DM@X (2025), ‘Digital Media at the Crossroads’, Accessed 12 February 2025.

Doyle, G. (2019), ‘Public policy, independent television production and the digital challenge’, Journal of Digital Media & Policy, 10:2, pp. 145–62.                    

Eklund, O. (2023), ‘Policy translation not policy transfer: bad knowledge in streaming and cultural policy transfer from the European Union to Australia’, 73rd Annual ICA Conference, Toronto, Canada, 25–29 May 2023.

European Parliament and Council of the European Union (2010), ‘Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive)’, 10 March, Accessed 1 January 2021.

European Parliament and Council of the European Union (2018),‘Directive (EU) 2018/1808 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 amending Directive 2010/13/EU on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) in view of changing market realities’, 14 November, Accessed 1 January 2021.

European Parliament and Council of the European Union (2019), ‘Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC’, 17 April, Accessed 1 January 2021.

European Producers Club (2021), ‘EPC code of fair practices for VOD services when commissioning new works from independent producers’, https:// www.europeanproducersclub.org/our-code-of-fair-practices. Accessed 20 March 2021.

European Producers Club (n.d.),‘FAQ on the definition of independent producer’, Accessed 20 March 2021.

García Leiva, M. T. and Albornoz, L. A. (2021), ‘VOD service providers and regulation in the European Union: an audiovisual diversity approach’, International Journal of Cultural Policy, 27:3, pp. 267–81.

Gomez-Uribe, C. A. and Hunt, N. (2015), ‘The Netflix recommender system: Algorithms, business value, and innovation’, ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems, 6:4, pp. 1–19.

Helberger, N., Karppinen, K. and D’Acunto, L. (2018), ‘Exposure diversity as a design principle for recommender systems’, Information, Communication & Society, 21:2, pp. 191–207.

Idiz, D. (2024), ‘Local Production for Global Streamers: How Netflix Shapes European Production Cultures’, International Journal of Communication, 18(2024): 2129–2148.

Idiz, D. R., & Poell, T. (2025), ‘Dependence in the online screen industry’, Media, Culture & Society, 47(2), 375-393.

Idiz, D. R., Irion, K., Ebbers, J. and Vliegenthart, R. (2021), ‘European audiovisual media policy in the age of global video on demand services: A case study of Netflix in the Netherlands’, Journal of Digital Media & Policy ,12(3): 425–449.

Irion, K. and Valcke, P. (2015), ‘Cultural diversity in the digital age: EU competences, policies and regulations for diverse audiovisual and online content’, in E. Psychogiopoulou (ed.), Cultural Governance and the European Union, Houndmills and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 75–90.

Keslassy, E. (2025), ‘Netflix, Max and Prime Video Negotiate With French Film Guilds for Earlier Access to New Releases After Disney+ Deal’, Variety, Accessed 12 February 2025. 

Koljonen, J. (2022), Nostradamus report: Imagining a sustainable industry, Göteborg Film Festival, Accessed 13 February 2025.

Kostovska, I., Raats, T. and Donders, K. (2020), ‘The rise of the “Netflix tax” and what it means for sustaining European audiovisual markets’, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 33:4, pp. 423–41.

Lacourt, A., Radel-Cormann, J. and Valais, S. (2023), Fair remuneration for audiovisual authors and performers in licensing agreements. Report for the European Audiovisual Observatory. Strasbourg: IRIS Plus. (accessed 18 March 2024).

Lobato, R. (2018), ‘Rethinking international TV flows research in the age of Netflix’, Television & New Media, Special Issue: ‘Rethinking International TV Flows Research in the Age of Netflix’, 19:3, pp. 241–56.

Lobato, R. (2019), Netflix Nations: The Geography of Digital Distribution, New York: New York University Press.

Lobato, R. and Lotz, A. D. (2020), ‘Imagining global video: The challenge of Netflix’, Journal of Cinema and Media Studies, 59:3, pp. 132–36. Lotz, Amanda D. (2017), Portals: A Treatise on Internet-distributed Television, Ann Arbor, MI: Maize Publishing.

Lotz, A. D. (2019), ‘The multifaceted policy challenges of transnational internet-distributed television’, Journal of Digital Media & Policy, 10:1, pp. 27–31.

 Meir, C. and Mitric, P. (2025), ‘Intellectual Property and the Contemporary European Audiovisual Industries’, European Audiovisual Production Association (CEPI).

Mirrlees, T. (2019), ‘A Political Economy of the Cultural Industries in Canada’, in M. P. Thomas, L. F. Vosko, C. Fanelli, and O Lyubchenko, eds., Change and Continuity, Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, pp. 203–26.

Napoli, P. M. (2011), ‘Diminished, enduring, and emergent diversity policy concerns in an evolving media environment’, International Journal of Communications, 5, pp. 1182–96.

Nieborg, D. B. and Poell, T. (2018), ‘The platformisation of cultural production: Theorizing the contingent cultural commodity’, New Media & Society, 20:11, pp. 4275–92.

Ortner, S. B. 2010. ‘Access: Reflections on Studying up in Hollywood’, Ethnography 11(2): 211–33.

Riley, M., Machado, L., Roussabrov, B., Branyen, T., Bhawalkar, P., Jin, E. and Kansara, A. (2018), ‘AVA: The Art and Science of Image Discovery at Netflix’, Netflix Technology Blog, 7 February, Accessed 1 May 2021.

Roxborough, S. (2023), ‘Cannes: Streamers and Theatrical – Better Together?’, The Hollywood Reporter, Accessed 12 February 2025.

Smith, M. D. and Telang, R. (2016), Streaming, Sharing, Stealing: Big Data and the Future of Entertainment, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

TIFF (2025), ‘Perspectives on the Future of the Canadian Film Industry’, TIFF Industry.

UNESCO (2005), Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, New York: United Nations.

Valcke, P. (2011), ‘Looking for the user in media pluralism regulation: Unraveling the traditional diversity chain and recent trends of user empowerment in European media regulation’, Journal of Information Policy, 1, pp. 287–320.

Vlassis, A. (2020), ‘European Union and online platforms in global audio- visual politics and economy: Once upon a time in America?’, International Communication Gazette, 83:6, pp. 1–23.

Whittcock, J. (2024), ‘Global Streaming Giants Call On Canadian Court To Shelve Streaming Levy’, Deadline, Accessed 12 February 2025.

Zboralska, E., Davis, C.H. , Shtern, J., Ciccone, V. (2017) ‘Cultural Diversity Reporting in the Canadian Audiovisual Industry: Making Monitoring Meaningful’, Quaderns del CAC 43 (2017): pp. 73-85.

Date modified:

2025-06-04