Governments around the world pay film and TV producers back a share of what they spend in the country, whether that goes on crews, hotels or studio space. A shoot creates jobs, fills hotel rooms, puts a location in front of a global audience and, over time, helps a country build a film industry of its own.

Most comparisons of these schemes stop at the percentage a country is willing to return. The more useful question is what each country wants in return for that money, because the answer varies far more than the rates do. Most schemes sort into two camps, with a few outliers: those that pay for the shoot and leave ownership of the film with its producer, and those that pay for local content and, in some countries, require local producers to own the copyright in the finished film, and with it the say over who distributes it.

Key takeaways

•       Headline rates are only part of the deal: minimum spends, caps, cultural tests and local partners decide what a production actually gets back.

•       Spend-based schemes in Hungary, Spain and Saudi Arabia pay for the shoot and generally leave ownership of the film with the visiting producer.

•       Content-based schemes in Canada and Australia reward local projects and can require the local producer to own the copyright.

•       Some countries take other routes: Belgium cuts investors' tax bills, while Denmark caps its budget and makes projects compete for it.

•       Where a scheme keeps ownership local, as Canada's does, the local producer controls how a finished title is first licensed, and so who buyers eventually license it from.

Paying for the Shoot: Incentives for Visiting Productions

Let's start with the case where a government attracts a foreign production. The production team spends money locally and typically keeps ownership of the film, while the host government returns a share of that spending and the country keeps the jobs, the hotel nights and a few weeks of its scenery on screen.

Since that spending is what these countries are after, the percentage is their main selling point, and they compete like shops trying to beat each other's sale prices. Hungary returns 30% of qualifying spend under a state-guaranteed scheme that has been extended to the end of 2030. The Canary Islands offer 50% on the first €1 million (54% once spend on the islands passes about €1.8 million) and 45% on the rest, against 30% and 25% on the Spanish mainland. In May 2026, Saudi Arabia raised its cash rebate from 40% to up to 60% of eligible expenditure, announcing the change at Cannes.

Each rate comes with conditions.

Hungary shows why the terms need watching even when a scheme is guaranteed to 2030. A cap on new registrations limited access in the first half of 2026. It was lifted in July, though the backlog it left means registration can still take several months. Every film shot there must also pass a cultural test.

The Canary Islands require at least €1 million spent on the islands, a total budget of at least €2 million and a service producer resident there. All public support combined is capped at 50% of the production cost, and creative staff count only if they are resident in Spain or the wider European Economic Area.

Spain also asks most foreign productions to earn at least 15 of 35 points on a cultural checklist, which rewards things like Spanish or European settings and characters, and filming and visual effects done in Spain. So even a scheme built around spend asks for some link to Spain or Europe, and that link can shape what ends up on screen. The film's owners must also allow Spain to use the title and promotional material for cultural and tourism promotion, and the credits must mention the incentive. The local executive producer, for its part, must never own the production's intellectual property, so it stays with the foreign producer that commissioned the shoot.

Saudi Arabia's 60% is the top of its range, and the same announcement promised faster payouts, which matters because most rebates are paid only after the money has been spent. The conditions include a Saudi-registered production company or a co-production agreement with one, and clearance of the script by the Film Commission.

Across all three, foreign producers have to work through a local company, whether a registered service producer in Hungary and Spain or a Saudi-registered partner. The money reaches them through a local partner rather than straight from the government.

Incentives That Reward Local Content

The second camp works the other way round. Instead of rewarding a visiting shoot, these schemes support projects that belong to the country's own producers, creatives and stories, so the main question becomes what the project is and who made it. In some countries the local producer must also own the copyright, which keeps the finished film under local control and gives that producer the say over who distributes it abroad.

Canada runs both kinds of incentive side by side. Its production services credit returns 16% of qualified Canadian labour costs to productions with no Canadian-content requirement. Its Canadian film or video production tax credit returns 25% of qualified labour costs, but only to a Canadian-controlled production company that owns the copyright, and only for projects certified as Canadian content. The labour counted is capped at 60% of the production cost, so the 25% headline comes to at most 15% of the budget.

Australia draws the line with a test. Its Producer Offset returns 40% of qualifying Australian spend on features made for cinemas and 30% on other projects, such as television and streaming, but only if Screen Australia judges that the project has significant Australian content. It looks at the story, where the project is made and who works on it. It also considers who owns the copyright and who shares in the revenue, as part of an overall judgement rather than a strict rule. Foreign shoots that fail the test can use the Location Offset instead, which also returns 30% but only for productions that spend at least A$20 million in Australia.

The Middle Ground: Local Tests, Foreign Ownership

The line between the two camps is not always clean. The UK shows that a local test can coexist with foreign ownership. Its Audio-Visual Expenditure Credit returns 34% of qualifying spend on film and high-end television (25.5% after corporation tax), but every claim needs British certification, usually by scoring at least 18 out of 35 on a points-based cultural test. The claimant can be a UK company set up on behalf of an international parent, so a foreign studio can pass the test and keep ownership of the film.

Saudi Arabia blurs the line from the other side. Its rebate is open to local and international producers alike, and the state also backs large local films directly. 7 Dogs, reportedly the most expensive Arabic film ever made, was produced by Sela, a company owned by the country's sovereign wealth fund, and according to Enterprise the Saudi producer keeps the IP.

Other Ways to Attract Productions: Tax Breaks and Fixed Budgets

Not every country pays producers back after the shoot. Belgium lets companies that invest in a film production cut their own tax bill, so a company that puts in €100,000 can save roughly the same amount in tax, according to BNP Paribas Fortis. The producer receives the investors' money early and has 18 months to spend it on the production, while the investor gets no rights in the film, so ownership stays with the producer.

Denmark sets a fixed budget instead. Its rebate, launched in 2026, pays back 25% of eligible Danish costs, but the government has only about €17 million a year to hand out, and no single production can claim more than DKK 20 million (about €2.7 million). Projects compete in two rounds a year and are ranked on points, for example for shooting days in Denmark and for using Danish or European cast and crew. At least a quarter of the budget must also come from foreign financing.

Applying is only the entry ticket. In the first round, 31 projects applied and seven were funded.

What Governments Are Really Paying For

The rebate itself is rarely the real prize. Governments pay because a production brings other things with it, such as work for local crews, money from outside the country, a stronger local film culture and, increasingly, visitors. Tourism is the payoff governments talk about most, because a successful series puts a location in front of millions of viewers, and some of them later want to see it for themselves.

Several of the rules above point straight at those goals: the cultural tests, the residency requirements, Spain's right to use a title for tourism promotion. Every attractive headline rate comes with plenty of buts, and those buts are where each government's priorities show. The percentage is only the start of the story, and what each government wants in return is the question worth asking before comparing any rates.

One consequence is easy to miss. Where a scheme requires the local producer to keep the copyright, as Canada's does, that producer also controls how the title is first licensed and shares in revenue from foreign markets, and those films and series still have to find buyers abroad. That is the part of the story allrites works in. We help rights holders license finished titles to platforms around the world, on their own terms.