Can Korea Fix Film Holdback Without Redefining 'Film' First?

On Netflix, the streaming platform's synopsis for "KPop Demon Hunters" classifies the work as a "Film." Some readers may think this is only natural — if the animated feature is not a film, what else would it be? And indeed, if "KPop Demon Hunters" is not a "film," then what is it?

Regardless of how U.S. streaming platforms classify their content, "KPop Demon Hunters" is not a "film" under South Korea's legal framework. In Korea, a work must be shown in a movie theater to qualify as a "film." The current Promotion of the Motion Pictures and Video Products Act, known as the Film and Video Act, defines a "film" as "a work in which continuous images are recorded on film, disc or other digital media, produced for the purpose of being shown to the public in a movie theater or similar venue or facility." By this standard, whatever Netflix chooses to call it, the titles streamed on the platform are not "films."

Of course, this definition has become somewhat strained as things now stand. Both are animated works, yet "Catch! Teenieping" counts as a film while "KPop Demon Hunters" does not. In other words, content of the same form is classified differently depending on its distribution channel — a movie theater or a streaming platform — and that difference carries through to government support and regulation. To resolve this inconsistency, a plan is being drawn up to redefine all video content under a single framework.

Why did this gap arise? The Film and Video Act's definition of film sets out the basic attributes of a film, and ultimately it is a provision meant to give film preferential treatment. Over the years, Korean cinema has become a symbol of the country, and vast sums of state money have been poured into promoting it. Film has its own separate law, the Film and Video Act, as well as its own promotion body, the Korean Film Council. It has received far more support than other video content, and to preserve that support, a so-called "partition" took shape.

For years, when movie theaters and television were the main channels for video content, there was little problem. Films went to theaters and dramas went to television. The trouble began with the arrival of streaming platforms. As film-like content began circulating on streaming services, the theater-centered film industry contracted.

Two issues have recently come to the fore in the film industry: the question of changing the definition of "film," and the question of introducing a so-called "holdback." First, revising the definition of "film" is, put simply, the question of whether to stop treating only theatrically released works as "films" and instead widen the scope to other distribution channels. As noted earlier, what should be done with films streamed on streaming platforms? The question is whether works identical in content and form should be treated differently simply because their distribution differs.

Solutions can be sought from various angles, but none are easy, because money and territory are at stake either way. One approach is to widen the definition of film to include streaming titles. At present, the government collects part of the admission fees paid by moviegoers as a "levy" to support film production, but collects nothing from streaming platforms. Should taxpayer money then be spent supporting streaming content as well? Of course, streaming content cannot be subsidized indiscriminately. Yet if a levy were collected from streaming platforms too, a giant foreign streaming company like Netflix would be unlikely to accept regulation by the Korean government.

Beyond this, many issues remain to be resolved: whether the investment capital is Korean or belongs to a foreign streaming company, and whether the intellectual property (IP) of a film is held by Korea or by a foreign company. Streaming platforms, too, include a mix of foreign and homegrown domestic operators, so the form of regulation could differ. It must also be considered that other types of distribution channels beyond streaming platforms could emerge.

If the scope of film were widened to include streaming, the question of how to distinguish features from short works would also have to be resolved. Would only the self-contained "KPop Demon Hunters" count as a film, while the multi-episode "Squid Game" would not? In that case, what if all streaming content were treated as film? But Netflix itself classifies "Squid Game" as a "drama" rather than a film. Recently, many domestic television dramas have also moved to streaming platforms. If SBS's drama "Kim Bu-jang" is distributed on Netflix, should it be called a "film"?

The controversy over the definition of "film" has also carried over into the debate over whether to introduce a holdback. A holdback is a system that restricts a film shown in theaters from being streamed on platforms for a set period. Naturally, it is a regulatory system that favors the theaters that screen films. Film producers are known to oppose its introduction. Of course, the film community's interests differ depending on where each party stands.

For instance, without a holdback, as films increasingly come to share distribution channels with streaming platforms, the very concept of "film" becomes blurred. A situation could arise in which a film production company receives government support funded by taxpayer money but earns its actual profits on a streaming platform. This is a question of the identity of "film."

Yet if a holdback is introduced and its period extended, film producers are dissatisfied. Their argument is that they cannot compete with streaming content while tied to theaters. It is also hard to side with the theaters, since they too carry no small number of problems. The vertical integration of major theater chains and their screen monopolies are long-standing grievances among filmmakers.

The definition of "film" and the holdback issue are now under discussion, with calls for both to be revised and introduced together. The Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism is leading the discussion directly. However they are settled, they are issues that will send major ripples through the domestic film market, and further through the entire video industry.

The difference between the two matters is that the holdback discussion is moving faster. This appears to be connected to President Lee Jae-myung's thinking. At a New Year's press conference in January, President Lee publicly mentioned the need to introduce a holdback. By contrast, how to change the very definition of "film" remains far off. Leaving the current definition of "film" untouched, resolving the holdback issue is unlikely to be easy either. It is not known whether President Lee has ever mentioned the need to broaden the definition of "film."

The Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, together with the Korea Creative Content Agency, held the "2026 First Broadcasting and Video Leaders Forum" on March 27 and set out to tackle the controversy over the definition of "film" in earnest. Earlier, Minister Choi Hwi-young had pledged, at the first press meeting after taking office on September 4, 2025, to revise the Film and Video Act to redefine "film." Yet a year on, there has been no notable news.

On the holdback, the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism and the Korean Film Council held the first meeting of a "public-private council for improving the distribution structure of Korean film" on May 29, and said they would decide whether to introduce the system by the end of August. Whether a conclusion can actually be reached this month, however, is not certain.

[From Choi Soo-moon's Cultural Capital] This column examines cultural phenomena unfolding in Korea, a global cultural capital, and explores the path it must take to become a true cultural capital.