Exhibiting broader screen content presents several challenges, particularly around licensing, distribution, and staff expertise.

As noted in the 2024 Venice Immersive Think Tank Report, ‘there are not generalizable solutions to the problem of immersive distribution because there's a diversity of different exhibition contexts, immersive formats, and content genres represented’.

There is currently a clash between established cinema exhibition models and the bespoke, evolving nature of immersive media, compounded by skills and knowledge gaps within venues’ programming structures. However, there are some useful examples of new and nascent approaches to licensing and distribution that we’ll introduce in this post.

Licensing and Distribution Models

Traditional cinema exhibition operates within established frameworks for film licensing and distribution, with clear rights agreements, formats (e.g., DCPs), and scheduling practices. In contrast, projects falling within the category of Broader Screen content often:

  • Lack standardised licensing models.
  • May require bespoke agreements for each venue or installation.
  • Rely on platforms or hardware-specific delivery, making them less compatible with conventional cinema systems.
  • Do not fit into timed programming slots, as they may be non-linear, interactive, or open-ended.

This mismatch creates friction when integrating immersive works into the existing programming and operations of cinema exhibition venues.

Finding Work to Programme

In terms of finding work to programme, we can look at some useful examples from European models for distribution, such as Astrea, and Diversion XR, which offer catalogues of broader screen content and varied distribution channels and approaches. 

There are also independent Studios, such as Felix and Paul, who develop their own award-winning broader screen content for distribution and have their own licensing agreement. This is a useful starting point for understanding how to show broader screen content in your venue.

The financial models for licensing and distribution of broader screen content are still unstandardised. The Nieuwe Instituut's recent report identified various options: ‘a flat fee licence, where a fixed fee is paid for use of the work; revenue sharing, where revenue is shared based on use; or a combination of both, such as a minimum guarantee plus revenue sharing’ They note that ‘each of these models has its own administrative, legal and communication challenges’.

For makers considering licensing broader screen work for public display commercially, it would be useful to consider Creative Commons Licensing. For software licensing, check out EULA. 

In many ways, programming and presenting Broader Screen content could be more comparable to theatre programming, as the work may have specific installation needs and requirements. This could include aspects of set design, specific space requirements, specialised kit and technical needs, bespoke audience onboarding and offboarding, and specific seating requirements, such as swivel chairs. It is becoming more common for this work to have technical riders for installation requirements, which is useful for venues considering programming broader screen work. 

It is hoped that as the sector grows, a more robust and standardised model will evolve, making it easier to programme, license and distribute broader screen content. 

For a wider sector overview of the current distribution of immersive artworks, see the Immersive Arts Programme Report ‘Early days of the immersive exhibition network’ and our post here.