A24’s reputation is on the line with the SCP Foundation movie
A24 announced a new V/H/S anthology film set in the SCP Foundation universe, prompting immediate backlash from the SCP community and raising legal and practical questions about the studio's ability to claim exclusive rights. The SCP Foundation Wiki says it was not contacted by the filmmakers, and experts say the project's Creative Commons licensing could prevent traditional exclusive distribution or monetization.
Why It Matters
The dispute highlights how community-created, Creative Commons–licensed internet properties can clash with conventional studio business models, and it tests whether a major distributor can adapt to ShareAlike licensing requirements or will need to rework a high-profile project.
Key Facts
- Studio: A24 (partners: Image Nation Studios and Spooky Pictures)
- Project: V/H/S: SCP (a V/H/S installment set in the SCP Foundation universe)
- Community response: SCP Foundation Wiki said it had no communication with the filmmakers despite attempts to contact them
- License governing SCP: Creative Commons CC BY-SA 3.0 (ShareAlike)
- Quote from Image Nation/Spooky spokesperson: Monique Levine said A24's worldwide rights pertain to the specific film project being produced
A24's announcement of V/H/S: SCP — a new entry in the V/H/S anthology set within the SCP Foundation universe — sparked swift pushback from the SCP community and raised immediate legal concerns. The SCP Foundation Wiki, which serves as the central repository for the community's work, said it had not been contacted by the filmmakers despite multiple outreach attempts, and an admin confirmed those efforts to The Verge. That disconnect follows earlier tension after A24's Backrooms release, when the studio faced criticism for filing and then withdrawing copyright claims against Backrooms creators.
A core complication stems from the SCP project's licensing. The SCP Foundation's material is published under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 (CC BY-SA 3.0), which allows commercial use but requires adaptations to be released under the same license and forbids exclusive rights. Creative Commons CEO Anna Tumadóttir told The Verge that while commercial adaptations are permitted, they must be shared under the same terms and allow attribution and redistribution by others unless a separate agreement is reached with the original copyright holders.
Legal experts say that requirement fundamentally clashes with standard studio distribution models. Law professors interviewed noted that although any party may legally produce an SCP film, a studio could not prevent others from making adaptations or redistributing the work if it remained under CC BY-SA. The SCP Wiki admin pointed out that theaters could still charge admission, but that the lack of exclusivity might undermine the practicality of a traditional theatrical rollout if people can legally download and redistribute the film.
Faced with these constraints, the story suggests several paths forward for A24 and its partners: proceed and risk license enforcement and community backlash; strip explicit SCP branding while drawing inspiration from the source material; or release the film under CC BY-SA and accept nonexclusive distribution — a commercially unusual approach. The Verge reporting indicates A24 declined to comment, while Image Nation and Spooky Pictures emphasized that the studio's rights cover the specific film project, but questions about compatibility with the ShareAlike license and community relations remain unresolved.
Keep Reading
What is the AI singularity? Some experts say it’s closer than ever
TechCrunch Mobility: How do we know when an AV is safe enough?
Vocci’s ring adds a new form factor to meeting note-taking
