The effects of protection in cultural industries: the case of the Korean film policies

Assessing Malaysia’s Creative Industry: Progress and Policies in the Case of the Film Industry

“…The early policy of import quotas was based on LFMs making (and exporting) a certain number of movies in order to be entitled a quota of imports to be screened locally while the later policy (1966 onwards) was based on screen quotas, i.e., gazetting a fixed number of days for FMs' screening. Both, according to Parc (2017) have been detrimental to the sector in that they either lead to gaming the system (in the former, increasing local output just for the sake of meeting the quota to qualify for the rights to import) or indirectly hurting the sector (in the latter, the restricted days of screening only meant even tougher competition for LMs as only the best FMs are imported in order to maximize the returns from the limited window for foreign screening). Chung Insun (2018) also reported the detrimental impact of the import quotas to the SK FI before the mid-1980s liberalization -FFs' market share rose up to 80% despite the protectionist policies at the time.…”

“…This way, it would avoid any embarrassment to film-makers with an already finished article but rejected nonetheless, presumably over quality issues 32 . In any event, the issue of defining quality from the perspective of regulators was criticised in Parc (2017), lamenting the weakness of the import quota era in SK's FI in which the highquality reward system was eventually replaced due to endless disputes over quality 33 . 32 A good example is the practice by the Lithuanian Film Center (LFC) -as part of the public policy on state fund eligibility for LFMs, the LFC must first assess the film project's potential, this ranging from evaluating the film's plot to the personnel involved and even to the execution of the project as well.…”

“…33 In this scheme (from 1959-1986), only successful players which produce and export SK movies be rewarded with the rights to import films. Presumably, only high-quality movies could be exported (for more, see Parc, 2017).…”

Australia and the European Union: A Brief Commercial History

“…Hence, it can be reasonably conjectured that (everything else being constant) the attractive size of the Australian market should remain stable for a while. Sources: Centre National du Cinéma et de l'Image Animée (2015), Polish Film Institute (2015, Parc (2017a), Screen Australia (2017a). Table 13.1 shows that US films have a large market share in the Australian market.…”

The Chinese–Korean co-production pact: collaborative encounters and the accelerating expansion of Chinese cinema

“…3 Given that other recent studies of film policy (Parc 2016) and cultural diplomacy (Kang 2015) in Korea have neglected to discuss the 15 implications of the agreement, it seems fitting that the present investigation should attempt to fill the gap. Like other international policy instruments of its kind that seek to increase training opportunities -as well as to provide location incentives, producer offsets and tax exemptions, and post-production rebates -the 2014 agreement undertakes to 20 stimulate an increasing number of official film collaborations and industry networking initiatives between both nations, and to maximize distribution opportunities for co-produced films in the global market.…”