37
Statement On V/H/S SCP Foundation Film - SCP Foundation Discussion (scp-wiki.wikidot.com)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/movies@piefed.social
2 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

all 2 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 19 points 2 months ago

SCP Foundation Wiki is licensed under CC BY-SA, which is copyleft, therefore this adaptation must be shared under the same or compatible license. This also means everyone is free to redistribute it. If it’s good I might be interested in that redistribution 😏

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 7 points 2 months ago

    Based. Whether it holds up in court will be interesting to see.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    15 comments in c/scp@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 7 points 1 month ago (9 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (8 children)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (4 children)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent