Exclusive: As vice-chairman of the European Parliament’s Committee on Culture and Education, French MEP Emma Lafovitz has become an important political voice in the European film and television industry.
A member of the European Parliament’s Centre Left S&D Group, Rafovic has gained a reputation as a politician who has been involved in, interested in, and interested in many of the major issues facing the film and television sector, from the Creative Europe Future and Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) to the blackmailed film tarif of artificial intelligence and artificial intelligence.
Rafowicz will be in Cannes this week. There, we will hold a press conference hosted by independent producer organisations across Europe and across the country to commemorate the signing of a new charter of independent production. She will also address the role of the film and television sector in supporting democracy, creativity and cultural diversity in Europe.
Prior to the Cannes appearance, Rafovich shared her opinion screen About some of the most pressing issues facing the European industry.
What do you think of President Trump’s plan for tariffs on films made outside of the US?
The US President continues and signs on the path of true trade and culture wars.
The American administration is currently opting for cultural nationalism. Its foundation opposes the universal message that American cultural models are influenced overseas and open to foreign cultural influences. The US president even considers films produced overseas to be “propaganda.”
Against this backdrop, the European Commission must oppose American cultural nationalism. The Commission must protect European cultural exceptions by strengthening the logic of reciprocity, the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVM) protection provisions against the Trump administration.
Does your reaction to President Trump’s February 21 note identify AVMSD as one of the “unfair practices” that affect American businesses? Also complaint by the Film Association (MPA) about the financial obligations facing European members?
The US administration’s attack on the Audiovisual Media Services (AVMS) directive is just one example of a broader strategy of economic pressure from Washington. When Americans attack the AVMS directive, they touch on one of the most successful structures of European cultural exceptions that help maintain an independent production ecosystem.
This approach was also seen through the introduction of tariffs on European products and repeated attempts to weaken digital regulations. It is part of a clear effort to challenge Europe’s ability to defend its own cultural and economic interests.
The MPA’s complaints about the financial obligations of its members in Europe are not new. Most recently, they have contributed to US trade officials’ consultations on investment obligations, allocations and “unfair” foreign trade practices that questioned French media chronology. They are engaged in battles in several aspects. It must not be forgotten that Netflix is currently suing laws implementing the AVMS directive in Wallonia, and that Disney is taking part in the appeal. The legal action includes a request for preliminary questions sent to the European Court of Justice, questioning the ability of Member States to freely build national cultural policies.
Do you think the European Commission is ready to defend AVMSD? In a recent letter to the committee, you wondered why you haven’t spoken yet in the defense of AVMSD.
I am deeply concerned about the silence from the European Commission. They responded to the American memorandum, but the spokesman’s comments were limited to the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA). Similarly, in a recent interview with Euronows, Commissioner Henna Virkkunen did not mention the Audiovisual Media Services (AVMS) directive, despite the DSA and DMA defending attacks from the former president. This double standard is inexplicable.
It should not be forgotten that in 1993, the European Commission under the leadership of President Derall, a decision was made to exclude audiovisual goods from the trade agreement. Under Barroso, we do not want to revisit the era in which the Commission attempted to undermine cultural exceptions by placing audiovisual and film goods within the EU-US Free Trade Agreement. The committee must defend the AVMS directive and take a clear and solid stance.
From the 2026 AVMSD Planning Review, what changes can the industry expect? Are you concerned about the review?
The revision of the 2026 directive has not yet been confirmed, and many voices can be heard claiming the current situation. This is a possibility that it should not be ruled out.
But for me, in the case of revisions, we are first and foremost careful, so that it remains a directive and not become a regulation (directly applicable without transposition at the member state level), so that countries can develop their own national cultural policies. We also caution to ensure that the command ambitions have not been downgraded, but rather have been reinforced in favour of ambitious cultural objectives.
He is also keen to ensure that revisions to the directive will provide stronger protection for minors and regulate online platforms and influencer practices. Finally, the role of public broadcasting and general interest media within the order must be strengthened.
Europe must recognize that cultural spheres should be protected and that they should not control the rules of the free market, as with other areas of activity. Culture is strategic for democracy.
Creative Europe has been reviewed before the EU Next long-term budget, MFF (perennial financial framework). Are you confident that your budget won’t be cut and your program won’t be wrapped up in other spending programs? What changes do you expect?
Ambitious budgets should be allocated to cultural and audiovisual sector funding in the financial framework over the next few years.
Together with many colleagues in the European Parliament, we advocate for double the budget for creative European programs.
Creative Europe is also a standalone program. I’ve heard that the committee is considering integrating it into a broader programme related to citizenship and democracy. These issues are important, but we need to be aware if the Commission decides to include broadcasters in the European Creative Media Strand. This not only reduces the funding of audiovisual small businesses, but could also challenge models of independent production. It is important to consider differences from a creative process and ecosystem perspective. It is essential to promote production models independent of broadcasters while supporting editorial independence.
We also know that Mediastrand is shaping future rules and models for the audiovisual sector. This is why we need to be particularly careful about the use of artificial intelligence within this fund, especially with regard to subtitles and dubbing.
The UK’s Cultural, Media and Sports (CMS) Committee recommends that the UK rejoin Europe, which is associated with Creative Europe. Is this something you welcome?
I strongly welcome the UK to rejoin Creative Europe as a sub-member. It was a shame that the UK chose to suspend participation in the Creative Europe programme following Brexit. The EU and the UK must work to strengthen their cultural connections, inspired by the UK’s involvement in Horizon Europe and Copernicus. More broadly, we should continue to strengthen our cultural relations, especially in areas such as artists and performers’ mobility.
How does the EU see cultural and film funding at a time when there are so many spending priorities like defense and technology?
We live through an era of important geopolitical and technical challenges. Naturally, all European institutions (Committees, Parliament, Councils) are paying close attention to funding strategic sectors such as defense and artificial intelligence.
However, this necessary increase should not be made at the expense of essential support for the cultural sector.
Because culture is a central issue of today’s geopolitical conflict and an integral part of “European security” facing attacks from revisionists and illegal forces.
The Ukrainian example clearly shows the strategic importance of culture. It is not only Ukrainian territory, but also a culture that is targeted by Russian attacks with the aim of systematically erasing it. Similarly, illicit regimes like the Hungarian government of Viktor Orbán have invested heavily in culture to use it as a tool for ideological promotion. In fact, Hungary is much dedicated to its biggest share of GDP for culture – over 4%! Finally, Europe must also oppose US offensive cultural nationalism. This now openly illustrates anti-European trends. All of this makes it more urgent than ever to increase funding for culture.
(TagStoTRASSLATE)Europe (T)Funding News (T)US
