- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
The staff and authors of the SCP Foundation Wiki (the real-life writing project behind the SCP Foundation universe and its official home) were not consulted or contacted regarding this film. We have been attempting to contact the filmmakers but haven’t yet been successful. To be clear: we have not had any communication with the filmmakers, producers, or distributors for this project, despite our best efforts, and to the best of our knowledge they have not made any efforts to contact us. Furthermore, A24 does not and cannot have any exclusive rights to anything related to the SCP Foundation, including any films that Spooky Pictures or anyone else may choose to create. (…)
Not exactly the same but there is an ongoing case in software where a non-copyright holder is suing. The software uses a license with a share-a-like mechanism and (if sucessful) this could set a president where anyone could sue for non-complience, perhaps including CC SA SCP media.
I see. Yeah I don’t know how CC-BY-SA exactly works, but if that lawsuit gets through, then at least using content from the wiki in the movie should require the movie to be shared under the same license.
But then the next question is, what counts as content from the wiki? As an example, assume someone takes an idea for an SCP from 4chan and writes a wiki entry under CC-BY-SA about it. Then the text is surely their original work. But the idea of the SCP is not. So for just using the idea, if A24 could prove they got it from 4chan, then they could practically use it for free, because the risk that someone can prove that they are the author of the corresponding 4chan post is really low.
Anyways, I would hope some YouTube lawyer would look at this case and give their opinion. But maybe after the movie was published and we actually know what was copied.
Another anyways, I look forward to seeing the movie.