A24 Faces High Stakes with Upcoming SCP Foundation Film

After the success of Backrooms, it seems a studio is eager to tap into another internet horror phenomenon with a new entry in the V/H/S anthology series, this time set in the SCP Foundation universe. However, the announcement has already sparked significant backlash, leaving V/H/S: SCP on uncertain footing.

SCP, like Backrooms, has its roots in 4chan and revolves around the fictional SCP (Special Containment Procedures) Foundation, which documents and contains paranormal anomalies. This expansive narrative unfolds primarily through wiki entries that resemble bureaucratic reports, blending sci-fi cosmic horror with the absurdity of red tape. It’s a perfect fit for a monster-of-the-week anthology format.

Unlike Backrooms, where the studio collaborated with the creator of a popular YouTube series, there seems to be no effort to engage the SCP community. The SCP Foundation Wiki, the central hub for all things SCP, issued a statement after the film’s announcement, noting, “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.”

An admin from the SCP Foundation Wiki mentioned that they had reached out multiple times since the project was announced but received no response.

This situation goes beyond just fan goodwill. The SCP community operates under specific licensing rules. The SCP Foundation is governed by a Creative Commons license, specifically CC BY-SA 3.0, which allows anyone to create and distribute works based on SCP, provided they also allow others to copy and create derivative works. This makes monetizing a feature film quite challenging.

The studio has previously stumbled after the release of Backrooms, upsetting fans by filing copyright claims against other creators before retracting them due to intervention from the director. Consequently, the studio and its partners have been keen to clarify that they are not claiming exclusive rights to the SCP universe. While the studio declined to comment, a spokesperson clarified that “the worldwide rights pertain to the specific film project being produced.”

However, under the SCP Foundation’s licensing terms, no one can claim exclusive rights to SCP material. The CEO of Creative Commons stated that “anyone can use works available under Creative Commons ShareAlike (CC BY-SA) license, even commercially,” but adaptations must be released under the same terms as the original. This means that unless a separate agreement is made with the copyright holders, a studio-produced film would need to be released under CC BY-SA 3.0 or a compatible version, with proper attribution, and without exclusive distribution rights. Others would still be free to redistribute or stream it under the same conditions.

A law professor pointed out that while anyone, including the studio, can create an SCP film, they wouldn’t be able to prevent others from making adaptations or redistributing it. This presents a unique challenge for a major studio.

The SCP admin agreed, noting that while the license wouldn’t stop the film from being shown in theaters, it complicates traditional distribution methods. The ability for anyone to distribute a CC BY-SA-licensed work means that typical exclusivity wouldn’t apply, raising questions about audience willingness to pay for a theater experience when they could download it for free.

This leaves the studio with several paths forward. They could proceed with the project and address legal issues later, but the licensing terms have been upheld in courts globally. If they ignore these rules, the film could be deemed unauthorized and infringing, potentially leading to its cancellation.

It seems more plausible that the studio will pivot away from the SCP branding while still drawing inspiration from the source material, a strategy that has been employed by others in the past. Alternatively, they could release the film under the ShareAlike license, hoping to recover production costs despite the inability to claim exclusive rights. This would be a bold move, but likely the least probable outcome.