Following a statement by the Cinema Foundation of Armenia, it became clear that the Armenian programme planned for the Classics section of the Annecy International Animation Film Festival had been temporarily postponed due to a legal issue. The Foundation stated that the French company Kissani Films, referring to a contract concluded back in the 1990s, had made claims regarding exclusive rights to around 250 films that are part of Armenia’s cinematic heritage.
KinoPress obtained access to the contract at the centre of the dispute. A review of the document shows that the matter may concern not simply “around 250 films”, but a list of 265 Hayfilm / Armenfilm titles dating from 1918 to 1995. The list includes many key works in the history of Armenian cinema: Namus, Pepo, Karine, Hello, It’s Me, The Tango of Our Childhood, The Color of Pomegranates, animated works by Robert Sahakyants, as well as Hamo Bek-Nazaryan’s unfinished film The Second Caravan.
At the centre of this story is not merely the postponement of one festival programme. It raises a broader question: over the past three decades, has the Republic of Armenia fully understood and documented what contracts were concluded around Hayfilm’s films, in which territories they apply, for what terms, and which institution is currently authorised to act on behalf of these films in the international market?
A Contract to Which the Cinema Foundation Was Not an Original Party
On September 10, 1994, a contract assigning distribution rights was concluded in Yerevan between Hayfilm and the French company Kissani Films. The Armenian side was represented by Gevorg Gevorgyan, while the French side was represented by Ani Hamel and Grigor Hamel.
This is a key point. The original party to the contract was neither the relevant ministry, nor the National Cinema Center of Armenia, nor the current Cinema Foundation of Armenia. The contract was a business arrangement between an operating film studio and a private French distributor.
Nevertheless, the Cinema Foundation’s possible connection to this contract may arise through the chain of legal succession. In other words, the question is not only that the Foundation was not a party to the 1994 contract. More importantly, did the Foundation, as a legal successor, inherit not only rights to Hayfilm’s films, but also the old contractual restrictions, obligations and disputed relationships attached to those rights?
This gives rise to the central legal uncertainty: if the Hayfilm-Kissani contract is still in force, or if the French side maintains that it is, within what limits could the Cinema Foundation, or previously the National Cinema Center of Armenia, present these films internationally without first clearing the status of the old contract or coordinating with the contractual distributor?
At this stage, it is unclear whether the matter will remain a pre-litigation claim, lead to negotiations, or turn into a court dispute. But it is already clear that the fact that the Cinema Foundation was not an original party to the old contract does not release it from the need to verify the legal status of the films it presents.
What Was Granted to the French Distributor
The contract concerns the assignment of distribution rights. This does not mean that ownership of the films was sold or transferred to the French company. It concerns the rights to distribute and exploit the films.
Under the contract, Kissani Films was granted exclusive distribution rights to the films. The wording is broad: it covers television, cable broadcasting, satellite broadcasting, theatrical exhibition, non-commercial screenings, videotapes, videodiscs and other carriers that existed at the time or might appear in the future.
Territorially, the contract applies to France, Europe and Francophone countries. Distribution of the films in other territories was to be carried out with the prior consent of Hayfilm and Kissani Films.
This is particularly important in the case of Annecy. Annecy is in France. If Kissani Films claims that the contract is still in force, its claim may be linked specifically to the exclusivity of screenings of Armenian films on French territory.
If There Was a French Distributor, Why Was There No Prior Agreement?
There is also a straightforward practical question in this story. If, under the 1994 contract, there was a French distributor for Hayfilm’s films in France, why was no attempt made in advance to reach an agreement with that company regarding the screenings planned in Annecy?
Within the logic of the contract, Kissani Films is not a random external obstacle, but the party to which Hayfilm once entrusted the distribution of its films in France, Europe and Francophone countries. If the Armenian side knew, or was obliged to know, about this contract in advance, a coordinated screening arrangement with the French side should have been among the first options to be discussed.
In practice, a situation has emerged in which the Armenian programme is being postponed not because the films do not exist or have not been restored, but because the rights chain had not been clarified in advance. And if the old contract is still being presented as valid, the issue also becomes one of governance: how did the Armenian side enter a festival programme on French territory without first clarifying who the contractual distributor for France was and what position that distributor held?
Ten Years That Could Have Been Extended Until 2034
Under the contract, the rights were granted for a term of 10 years from the date of signature. However, the same clause states that this period is renewed by default unless either party gives written notice of termination six months before the expiry of the term.
The document does not indicate a one-off 10-year term, but a 10-year period that could continue through tacit renewal.
If the 1994 contract was not properly terminated, the first term would have ended in 2004, the next in 2014, and the third in 2024. And if, before the end of the 2024 term, neither party gave notice of termination six months in advance, Kissani Films may argue that the contract was extended for another period — until 2034.
The issue here is not only legal interpretation, but also institutional memory. A contract concluded in 1994 and registered in France in 1997 could, in theory, continue to affect the international circulation of Armenian films in 2026 as well.
265 Films in One List
The list attached to the contract includes 265 films. It begins with films from 1918 and continues through 1995. The list covers different layers of Armenian cinema: the silent era, early Soviet cinema, classic fiction films, documentaries and animated works.
It includes Namus, Pepo, Karine, Hello, It’s Me, The Tango of Our Childhood, Sayat Nova / The Color of Pomegranates, as well as The Axe, The Button and other animated films by Robert Sahakyants.
At the same time, it is important to avoid oversimplification. This list does not mean that ownership rights to 265 films were transferred to Kissani Films. It means that exclusive rights for the distribution use of these films in certain territories and under certain conditions were granted to the French company.
The Color of Pomegranates in the Same Legal Chain
Sergei Parajanov’s The Color of Pomegranates deserves particular attention in the contract list. In the document, the film appears not once, but in two separate entries — as La couleur de grenade and Sayat Nova.
This may be significant, since The Color of Pomegranates is one of the best-known and most internationally circulated films in Armenian cinema. In 2015, it was reported that the restored version of the film would be released in France, Belgium, Switzerland and Spain. According to the same publication, the restoration work was carried out at the Bologna laboratory L’Immagine Ritrovata with the support of the World Cinema Foundation, the National Cinema Center of Armenia and Russia’s Gosfilmofond.
This raises an additional legal question. If The Color of Pomegranates and Sayat Nova are listed as separate entries in the 1994 Hayfilm-Kissani contract, and the contract applies to France, Europe and Francophone countries, on what legal basis were the film’s later European screenings and distribution organised? Was the 1994 contract taken into account at that time? Was there an agreement with the French distributor, or did this circumstance also remain outside the rights clearance process of state institutions?
Hello, It’s Me: Cannes, the MK2 Contract and the Same Old List
The same legal question may also concern Frunze Dovlatyan’s film Hello, It’s Me. In 2023, the Ministry of Education, Science, Culture and Sport reported that the 4K restored version of the film had premiered in the Classics section of the 76th Cannes International Film Festival. According to the publication, the digital restoration was initiated by the National Cinema Center of Armenia with financial support from the Hayastan All-Armenian Fund, while the restoration work was carried out from the film’s original negative by the Latvian studio Lokomotiv Classics.
The same statement also noted that, on the eve of the screening, a contract was signed between the National Cinema Center of Armenia and the French distribution company MK2, through which the film was to be presented on various international platforms.
However, in the appendix to the Hayfilm-Kissani contract, Hello, It’s Me is also included in the list of transferred films under the French title Bonjour c’est moi. In other words, at least two different legal layers exist around the same film: the question of distribution rights for France, Europe and Francophone countries under the 1994 contract, and the 2023 contract between the National Cinema Center and the French company MK2 for the film’s international presentation.
This episode further sharpens the broader issue. If the 1994 contract was not terminated or its legal consequences were not neutralised, the question arises: on what legal basis was a later contract for the international distribution of the same film concluded with another French distributor? Was the Hayfilm-Kissani contract checked in advance? Was there coordination with the old distributor, or was the case of Hello, It’s Me also carried out without a complete map of Hayfilm’s old contracts?
An EVN Report publication also noted that the world sales of Hello, It’s Me are handled by MK2, while profits from screenings are shared with the Armenian side. According to the same publication, permissions for screenings in Armenia are obtained from Armenian rightsholders, while international screenings are regulated by MK2.
All of this shows that the problem is not limited to the postponed animation programme in Annecy. If Hello, It’s Me and The Color of Pomegranates were also on the Hayfilm-Kissani list, then the international circulation of Armenian cinematic heritage may already contain contractual layers that at least require clarification in relation to one another.
Previous European Actions Are Also Called Into Question
The examples of The Color of Pomegranates and Hello, It’s Me open up a broader question. If the 1994 contract can still be presented as valid or not terminated, then not only future screenings, but also previous actions carried out by the National Cinema Center of Armenia or with state support in the European market may be called into question.
This is not to say that those actions were necessarily unlawful. Such a conclusion could only be drawn after a full review of the documents. But it is already clear that each such case requires comparison with old contracts — especially if the film was included in the Hayfilm-Kissani list, and the new transaction or screening took place in France, Europe or a Francophone territory.
In other words, the postponement of Annecy revealed not only the legal risk of one programme, but an entire chain of possible risks. If the 1994 contract was not terminated in time or its consequences were not clarified, a number of steps in the European circulation of Armenian cinematic heritage may raise retrospective questions.
This issue may also concern producers who used shots or fragments from classic Hayfilm films in new works. If the Cinema Foundation of Armenia, or previously the National Cinema Center, allowed producers to include fragments from films on the Hayfilm-Kissani contract list in new works with the right of subsequent screening or distribution also on French territory, a potential conflict of rights may arise here as well. In the absence of clear documentary proof that the relevant rights were transferred from Hayfilm to the ministry, the Cinema Center or the Foundation, the question remains open as to whether these institutions were authorised to grant such permissions, especially for a territory where the French distributor’s exclusive rights had previously been registered.
2015: Digital Copies Were Returned to the State, but the Full Chain of Title Did Not Become Clear
Government Decision No. 1050-Ա of August 31, 2015 is of key importance in this story. By that decision, the state resolved relations that had arisen as a result of the 2005 privatisation and returned the shares of Hayfilm.
However, the wording of the decision shows an important distinction. Hamo Bek-Nazaryan Hayfilm Film Studio CJSC was obliged to return to the Republic of Armenia, represented by the Ministry of Culture, the original digital media or digital copies from the Film Fund list, which were the property of the Republic of Armenia and had been provided to the company for use.
In other words, original digital media or digital copies were returned to the ministry. This, in itself, does not mean that the ministry became the direct holder of the property rights to the films.
The same decision obliged Hayfilm CJSC to return to the Ministry of Culture copies of contracts concluded with third parties concerning the use of the property rights of the Film Fund. This is directly connected to the current issue. If copies of such contracts were supposed to be transferred to the ministry in 2015, how did it happen that, in 2026, a French claim could halt the Annecy programme?
Here it is necessary to distinguish between three things: the material or digital copy of a film, the property rights to the film — meaning the rights to exploit, license, distribute or authorise the use of the film — and a contract for the use of those rights. In 2015, the ministry received original digital media and copies of contracts, but that wording does not in itself imply that the ministry became the direct holder of the property rights to the films.
Two Legal Lines: The Cinema Foundation and the Operating Hayfilm CJSC
In this story, it is important not to confuse two different legal lines. On the one hand, there is a chain of succession: the state enterprise Hayfilm, then Hayfilm SNCO, then the National Cinema Center of Armenia SNCO, and finally the Cinema Foundation of Armenia. By a 2024 government decision, the Cinema Foundation was created as a result of the reorganisation of the Cinema Center and is considered its legal successor in accordance with the transfer act.
On the other hand, there is also Hamo Bek-Nazaryan Hayfilm Film Studio CJSC — a separate legal entity around which relations were formed concerning the 2005 privatisation, the contribution of property, the return of shares and subsequent management. In other words, Armenia simultaneously has the Cinema Foundation, which is linked through the chain of succession to the Cinema Center and Hayfilm SNCO, and the operating Hayfilm CJSC, whose shares belong to the state.
This duality became particularly visible in 2026. First, a draft was circulated proposing that the property of Hayfilm CJSC be accepted as a donation, assigned to a state body, provided to the Cinema Foundation for free use, and that Hayfilm CJSC itself be liquidated. In the end, however, the state chose a different path: a decision was adopted transferring the powers to manage the state-owned shares of Hayfilm CJSC to the Ministry of Education, Science, Culture and Sport.
This means that the state did not proceed with liquidating Hayfilm CJSC and transferring its property to the Cinema Foundation. Instead, the operating CJSC was preserved, while the body managing its shares was changed. This circumstance matters because share management, use of property, return of digital copies and property rights to films are not the same legal phenomenon.
Therefore, the main question remains open: along which line do the rights to Hayfilm’s films and old contractual obligations continue today — through the SNCO–Cinema Center–Cinema Foundation succession chain, through the corporate line of the operating Hayfilm CJSC, or through an as yet unexplained legal division between the two? In the context of the Hayfilm-Kissani contract, this distinction may be decisive, because the question concerns not only who holds the copies or manages the shares, but who is authorised to permit the use of the films, their restoration, international screenings, or the inclusion of their fragments in new works.
2018: “Use of Property Rights”, but Not Necessarily Ownership
On the “Copyright” page of the Cinema Foundation of Armenia, it is stated that the Foundation relies on the contract “On the Use of Property Rights” concluded on August 8, 2018 between the National Cinema Center of Armenia SNCO and the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Armenia, as well as on licence agreements concluded on the basis of that contract between the Cinema Center and television companies operating in Armenia.
The same page states that, on this basis, the process is carried out for paying remuneration to the authors of Armenian feature-length fiction, short and animated films shown on television in the Republic of Armenia, or to persons considered their legal heirs.
This wording is important because it again refers to the “use of property rights”. It may indicate that the ministry and the Cinema Center created a legal mechanism for television screenings of films and for paying remuneration to authors. However, it does not in itself answer the more fundamental question: were the property rights to the films properly transferred from Hayfilm to the ministry, the Cinema Center or, later, the Cinema Foundation?
In other words, the origin of the rights remains an open question. If in 2015 the ministry received digital copies and copies of contracts with third parties, by what document, in what scope and at what moment did the property rights to the films pass to the ministry? And if in 2018 the Cinema Center received the ability to use those rights, was this a full right for international distribution, restored versions, European screenings and contracts with new distributors?
These questions are especially important because the 1994 contract was concluded not by the ministry or the Cinema Center, but by Hayfilm and Kissani Films. If the core property rights to the films or the powers for their international use were never clearly and publicly transferred to state structures, the legal basis of subsequent European actions requires additional explanation.
The Legal Limits of the Foundation’s Statement
In its statement, the Cinema Foundation said that a comprehensive study of the situation would be carried out with the involvement of relevant professional and competent structures, and that further steps would be taken in accordance with the legislation of the Republic of Armenia and the principles of preserving Armenian cinematic heritage and protecting the state interest.
This wording is understandable as a public response, but it has legal limits.
First, the Cinema Foundation was not an original party to the 1994 contract. Therefore, the Foundation must first clarify not only the grounds of its legal succession, but also whether the rights and obligations arising from that contract passed to it through that succession.
Second, the contract links dispute resolution to the courts of Paris. This means that if the issue reaches litigation, it will not be resolved only within the framework of Armenian legislation. The French legal environment and contractual jurisdiction may be decisive here.
Third, the reference to protecting the state interest takes the matter beyond the administrative scope of the Cinema Foundation alone. If the issue concerns state property, state assets, cultural heritage and potential legal damage, it may become a matter not only for the Foundation, but also for competent state bodies, including the Prosecutor’s Office.
At the same time, it should be noted that in 2023 the Prosecutor’s Office initiated an investigation concerning the Hayfilm film studio, which, according to published information, resulted in the initiation of criminal proceedings.
For this reason, the Foundation’s statement opens not only the question of examining Kissani Films’ claims, but also the question of competences within Armenia: who is authorised to speak on behalf of Hayfilm’s films, who is authorised to challenge or recognise the force of old contracts, and who is actually responsible for protecting the state interest?
When the Film Exists, but the Legal Map Does Not
Armenian cinematic heritage is often presented as an important part of national memory and cultural identity. But heritage is not only a restored copy, a festival screening or an anniversary programme. It also means contract accounting, rights mapping, checking territorial restrictions, and protecting the interests of authors and heirs.
Kissani Films’ claim showed that contracts from the 1990s, signed in relation to France, the CIS region, the United States, Canada and other directions, may appear on the international path of Armenian cinema — contracts that the state system either did not fully study or did not use as a risk map.
At the centre of the current discussion are 265 films — from Namus and Pepo to Hello, It’s Me, The Tango of Our Childhood, The Color of Pomegranates and Robert Sahakyants’ animation. But the question is broader: does the Republic of Armenia know what rights, contracts and restrictions exist around its cinematic heritage worldwide?
