AMC Networks International Central and Northern Europe’s Vice President, Head of Legal Andras Gelencser discusses his extensive career in the media and entertainment sector, his approach to working with outside counsel, and the legal challenges that the sector should be prepared for.
CEEIHM: You’ve spent most of your career in the media and entertainment sector, from RTL to AMC Networks. What attracted you to this industry initially, and what has kept you here for more than two decades?
Gelencser: It happened somewhat by coincidence, after spending a year at PwC — but it turned out to be the right choice. In the early 2000s, commercial television was a booming industry. It had a startup-like energy, full of young people, and we truly felt like pioneers. It was exhilarating and fast-paced, with a “work hard, play hard” attitude.
What made it especially rewarding was seeing the tangible results of our work on screen and being involved in the creative process — providing the legal foundation for productions, structuring advertising and sponsorship agreements, managing programme acquisitions, and overseeing the legal aspects of broadcasting major sporting events.
The industry has evolved significantly since then, becoming more professional and corporate, losing some of its early pioneering charm. Still, the experience of seeing the final product of my work on screen remains deeply fulfilling.
CEEIHM: What’s your process for balancing group-wide policies with local legal requirements across the region?
Gelencser: Operating across more than a dozen countries in Central Europe adds an extra layer of complexity to our work. We must not only comply with group-wide policies from our U.S. parent company but also navigate diverse local legal requirements.
Our legal team is structured accordingly: a core group of legal experts provides guidance from our Budapest headquarters, and we work closely with several local counsels in each jurisdiction when local expertise is required.
So far, implementing group policies has not posed significant challenges, as they are generally based on widely accepted principles — such as GDPR compliance or anti-corruption standards. When it comes to local compliance our U.S. colleagues rely heavily on the knowledge and experience of the International division when adapting policies for global implementation, which has fostered a smooth and respectful collaboration.
CEEIHM: How do you translate legal considerations into practical guidance for non-legal colleagues so they feel empowered instead of constrained?
Gelencser: I take a business- and solution-oriented approach. I see my role as a gatekeeper — someone who interprets the often rigid and nuanced legal advice and translates it into actionable guidance for our creative and commercial teams.
There’s a fundamental difference between the mindset of a traditional attorney, an in-house counsel, and a head of legal who is actively involved in daily operations, business decisions, and strategic planning.
I expect our lawyers to provide precise, matter-of-fact analysis. Our in-house counsel must understand the business context, and I need to bridge the gap between legal risk and business practicality — presenting guidance that senior management can use in real-world decision-making.
When non-legal colleagues understand that identifying risks and challenges is not a constraint but an essential part of project development, they feel more confident. A solid legal foundation is not a limitation — it’s a critical enabler of long-term success.
CEEIHM: How do you decide whether a matter should be handled internally by your team or outsourced to external counsel?
Gelencser: It depends on the nature of the issue and our internal expertise. As mentioned earlier, we operate in multiple jurisdictions. Even if a matter could be handled by our experienced Hungarian team, there are instances where local legal validation is necessary.
Additionally, there are legal fields in which we lack deep experience, or where it’s simply more efficient and cost-effective to outsource. The decision is always based on a combination of efficiency, jurisdictional needs, and complexity.
CEEIHM: When you need to bring in outside counsel, what’s your process for selecting the right firm or legal professional?
Gelencser: We prioritize responsiveness and deep subject-matter expertise. We work with both local law firms and international ones, depending on the context. Multinational law firms are particularly useful when we need fast, cross-border advice or when we’re entering unfamiliar legal territories.
I would be lying if I said that personal rapport and existing trust don’t play a role. The Hungarian market is small — almost all major players know each other, and we’re generally aware of who to turn to for a particular matter. I’m fortunate to be in a position where I could immediately name several firms whose professional work I trust implicitly.
When it comes to international matters, we typically rely on recommendations, but it’s no secret that cost is also a major factor in our decisions. Recently, we received two proposals for the same project — both from reputable international firms — and there was a sevenfold difference in their fees.
We’ve even had high-stakes litigation cases where I personally traveled abroad to conduct interviews and select the right law firm.”
CEEIHM: As traditional broadcasting converges with streaming and digital distribution, what legal challenges do you see becoming most pressing for media companies?
Gelencser: This is a turbulent time for legacy broadcasters. While streaming continues to grow rapidly, linear television remains highly popular in our region. One key issue is the lack of a level playing field: traditional media is heavily regulated, while streaming platforms often operate under less stringent rules.
Broadcasters entering the streaming space also face a steep learning curve. The D2C (direct-to-consumer) model is fundamentally different from the traditional broadcast business, both legally and operationally. Adapting to that requires not only new skills but also a completely different mindset.
CEEIHM: How do you see AI and new technologies impacting rights management, compliance, and IP law in broadcasting over the next few years?
Gelencser: Personally, I’m a late adopter — I proceed with caution. While AI offers tremendous benefits and efficiencies, it also introduces significant uncertainty.
It accelerates many creative and operational processes, but it also raises complex legal questions, especially in the area of intellectual property. Unsurprisingly, AI has become a major topic of discussion within our legal departments, particularly because we have a highly successful in-house production company — and protecting our IP is a top priority.
The legal framework around AI is still evolving, and I believe we need to stay vigilant and adaptable to protect both our content and our creators.
CEEIHM: If you could advise young legal professionals entering media law today, what skills or mindsets would you tell them to prioritize?
Gelencser: In addition to strong general legal knowledge, I would emphasize the importance of understanding technology, AI, and GDPR. A working knowledge of basic economics and accounting is also invaluable.
Equally important is the ability to think commercially — to understand the business and speak the language of your non-legal colleagues. Being flexible, curious, and pragmatic will take you far in this industry.