The FERA head reflects on her transition from the publishing sector to the audiovisual field, on the challenges linked to AI and on the uncertainties surrounding the future Agora programme

Newly appointed director of the Federation of European Screen Directors (FERA) Julie Belgrado brings a cross-sectoral perspective born of her experience in the publishing world. She breaks down the differences between the two fields, the challenges facing directors and the political dossiers currently under discussion at the European level.

Cineuropa: You come from the publishing world, while you have also worked in the audiovisual sector. What, in your view, are the key differences between them, particularly with regard to the authors you now represent?
Julie Belgrado: At the sector level, the main difference lies in the very structure of the value chain. Publishing is a relatively linear sector: author, publisher, bookseller, librarian, reader. The audiovisual field, on the other hand, operates as a far more complex ecosystem, with many players involved simultaneously – producers, distributors, directors, screenwriters and exhibitors.

What the two worlds do share, however, is the question of freedom. In publishing, it is more about freedom of expression; in the audiovisual sector, it is about artistic freedom. But in both cases, we are seeing forms of self-censorship linked to audience reactions or the broader context.

What are the main challenges currently facing FERA?
There are many of them, but the issue of artistic freedom is central. Across many European countries, we are witnessing a political shift to the right, which is having an impact on funding systems, on public service media, and therefore on what is produced and how it is produced.

Another key issue concerns opportunities for directors. Today, they find themselves in something of an in-between position: they are not fully eligible for cultural funding, yet they do not sufficiently benefit from audiovisual programmes such as MEDIA either. The entire development phase, which requires time, energy and often personal sacrifice, remains insufficiently supported.

How are authors reacting to artificial intelligence (AI), and what measures do you advocate?
For now, it is difficult to adopt a clear-cut position. We are in a grey area: everyone recognises that artificial intelligence is here to stay, but no one knows exactly how it should be framed.

Some directors are already using it as a tool to simplify certain processes or save time, but not as a creative tool. It is therefore essential to draw a clear distinction between generative artificial intelligence and AI used as technical support.

The issues of remuneration and licensing are also crucial, as these technologies feed on content created by authors. It is essential to ensure that their use is ethical, properly regulated and respectful of creation.

What developments are currently under way at the European level, notably regarding the Agora programme and on the legislative front?
As far as Agora is concerned, we have analysed the current text and expressed a number of concerns. Key notions, such as independence, have disappeared, which is problematic. For us, it is essential to build on the achievements of the MEDIA programme, which has proven its worth over more than 35 years, rather than weakening it. We are also calling for a clear separation of funding envelopes between audiovisual and news/media, as well as for greater legal clarity in the text.

More broadly, several legislative initiatives are under way, including discussions on working conditions for artists, and a strategy on AI in the cultural and creative industries. One of the major challenges will be to preserve learning opportunities for emerging authors, which risk being replaced by automated tools.

Finally, the revision of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive is another key dossier currently under consultation.

(Translated from French)