open souce movie

As a term "open source" tries to describe a state of source code, something needed learn what the software is actually doing and needed to change it. For most (but not all authors of software) the term "open source" also describes the right to redistribute editted copies - the only* aspect of "open source" shared with a CC BY-SA licensed movie. The movie authors don't have to share video editor project files.

Would people better understand the term "share-a-like movie", or "copyleft movie"?

The shitty automated systems would go away pretty quickly if false claims actually had a punishment. As it is they can just say "oops, our bad" and be totally off the hook for the chaos it causes for everyone else.

"We don’t know how many people would choose to pay to see a film in theaters when they could legally download it at home for free.”

How will you download it if you don't have the file? I'd be surprised if any movie theater would choose to share it, especially because they will surely have further agreements that prohibits them from doing so. Basically "I will not share this file or pay a huge contract violation fine".

So the only way to watch it would be through cam recordings that suck. And I believe YouTube and other video platforms could make agreements with A24 to take them down for a while.

Didn't they clear up any problems that happened quite fast?

Not that it should have happened in the first place, but it seemed that it was always some automated system that was absolutely not prepared to deal with a movie that is based on prior art that was so similar to the production

I mean… A24 can say whatever they want. The fact remains that the art they are producing is derivative of prior art, and that prior art has an intentionally very broad license that also applies to derivative art (and, you know, basically the entirety of the SCP article catalogue is derivative art in the first place). I don’t expect this would hold up well for A24’s lawyers if they actually try to go after people again.

Fucking hell dude why can't just one of these corps be decent. All of them are theiving cunts? Not one good apple? Fuck.

Thanks, that was insightful!

Wikipedia says "(the book There Is No Antimemetics Division) omits character names and concepts under a CC BY-SA 3.0 license, replacing references to "the Foundation" with "the Organization" and "SCPs" with "Unknowns"". Sounds like it's an original story set in legally distinct SCP-like universe. Like if I wrote a Godzilla movie but it didn't use any of their copyrighted works.

This post is available under CC BY-SA 4.0

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.

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.

Isn't there already the book and audiobook about the antimemetics division that is available only for sale, and not under creative commons or similar? Why was that not a problem, but this case is a problem for the wiki owners now?

I don't believe that anyone can prove that they are the author related to anything SCP, unless it was more formally published such as by writing a text and adding it to the wiki. So nobody would sue, and if someone would try they would most likely fail.

Even when stuff is copied from the wiki, it is unclear to me if anyone but the actual authors of the wiki entries can sue. And the original authors then also need to be able to prove that they are the actual holders of the accounts that created the text.

Legally. All the stuff not in the Wiki is still copyrighted. Using it without a licence would be copyright infringement. Of course they could still risk it.

What do you mean by valid? Low legal risks? Or that it complies with some sort of ethical standards?

Share-a-like means you can use a work but you must give others the same freedoms you enjoyed (when you distribute your derivatived work). That freedom is a big appeal to me - I can make a video game about any modern SCP.

Companies ignore this type of license all the time.. until they're taken to court - then they kick and scream like a child caught stealing.

I appreciate the correction/elaboration.

Salty they aren't involved, there is so much drama and craziness with the groups involved with scp and the eventual SCP wiki taken over. If you were a fan on SCP when it began, many of the original stories are lost media.

These people suck, best thing they can do is stay out of it and let the creation begin taking a life of it's own in real media. There's nothing to protect here.

Well, anything not in the Wiki would not be licensable by A24 unless they somehow managed to track down the original authors. So I guess in practice the Wiki is the only valid source of SCP material.

It's just the wiki that's creative commons. But the idea of SCP existed before the wiki. So they can't have an exclusive license on any scp published solely in the wiki, but the general idea behind scps is probably not owned by the wiki.

I think it is an creative commons license. Therefore they can't have an exclusive license on SCP movies.

Furthermore, A24 does not and cannot have any exclusive rights to anything related to the SCP Foundation

Who has copyright of the SCP foundation? I assume that the idea of the foundation existed before the wiki existed. And then anyone could make an SCP movie as long as nobody is able to prove that they were the ones posting the first SCP on 4chan.

I've never seen it, which is a damn shame. Have seen my share of GPL violations but never had the patience or energy to do anything about it.

What's going on? What is this place?

I mean... if they are going through with making the movie and are okay with the creative commons licensing, I might just go out of my way to financially support the heck out of it, and encourage anyone else to do the same. Big companies embracing CC-SA (and similar) and being commercially viable doing so would be pretty amazing. Hope something comes of this.

My favorite youtuber talking head hasn't broken this down for me, so I don't know what to think.