A24’s reputation is on the line with the SCP Foundation movie | The VergeSkip to main contentThe homepageThe VergeThe Verge logo.The VergeThe Verge logo.TechReviewsScienceEntertainmentAIPolicyNotificationsNotificationsHamburger Navigation ButtonThe homepageThe VergeThe Verge logo.NotificationsNotificationsHamburger Navigation ButtonNavigation DrawerThe VergeThe Verge logo.Login / Sign UpcloseCloseSearchLightSystemDarkTechExpandAmazonAppleFacebookGoogleMicrosoftSamsungBusinessSee all techReviewsExpandSmart Home ReviewsPhone ReviewsTablet ReviewsHeadphone ReviewsSee all reviewsScienceExpandSpaceEnergyEnvironmentHealthSee all scienceEntertainmentExpandTV ShowsMoviesAudioSee all entertainmentAIExpandOpenAIAnthropicSee all AIPolicyExpandAntitrustPoliticsLawSecuritySee all policyGadgetsExpandLaptopsPhonesTVsHeadphonesSpeakersWearablesSee all gadgetsVerge ShoppingExpandBuying GuidesDealsGift GuidesSee all shoppingGamingExpandXboxPlayStationNintendoSee all gamingStreamingExpandDisneyHBONetflixYouTubeCreatorsSee all streamingTransportationExpandElectric CarsAutonomous CarsRide-sharingScootersSee all transportationFeaturesVerge VideoExpandTikTokYouTubeInstagramPodcastsExpandDecoderThe VergecastVersion HistoryNewslettersArchivesStoreVerge Product UpdatesSubscribeFacebookThreadsInstagramYoutubeRSSThe VergeThe Verge logo.A24’s reputation is on the line with the SCP Foundation movieNotificationsNotificationsComments DrawerNotificationsCommentsLoading commentsGetting the conversation ready...EntertainmentCloseEntertainmentPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All EntertainmentReportCloseReportPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All ReportCultureCloseCulturePosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All CultureA24’s reputation is on the line with the SCP Foundation movieThe company is claiming ‘worldwide rights’ to a film that has to be released under a Creative Commons license. The company is claiming ‘worldwide rights’ to a film that has to be released under a Creative Commons license. by Terrence O'BrienCloseTerrence O'BrienWeekend EditorPosts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All by Terrence O'BrienSep 20, 2026, 12:45 PM UTCLinkShareGiftImage: A24 / stormbreath from the SCP Wiki / Terrence O’BrienTerrence O'BrienCloseTerrence O'BrienPosts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All by Terrence O'Brien is the Verge’s weekend editor. He’s covered the tech industry for over 18 years and knows a thing or two about synths.After the success of Backrooms, it looks like A24 is trying to cash in on yet another internet horror craze with a new installment in the V/H/S horror anthology series set in the SCP Foundation universe. But as soon as it was announced, the backlash started, and V/H/S: SCP already appears to be on shaky ground.SCP is a creepypasta that, like Backrooms, originated on 4chan. The fictional SCP (Special Containment Procedures) Foundation documents, captures, and contains paranormal or supernatural anomalies. It’s a sprawling story told primarily through wiki entries that mimic documentation you might file while working at a government agency. It’s sci-fi cosmic horror by way of bureaucratic nightmares. It’s the sort of material ripe for a monster-of-the-week style anthology.But, unlike Backrooms where A24 worked with the creator of a YouTube series popular within the Backrooms community, it does not appear as if the studio tried to engage the SCP community at all. The SCP Foundation Wiki, the official home for all things SCP, posted a statement following the announcement of the film that read, “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.”DrEverettMann, an SCP Foundation Wiki Admin, told The Verge that, “We have made several attempts to contact them since the announcement of the project but haven’t received a response.”This isn’t just about generating goodwill with fans, either. SCP is an organized community effort with licensing rules. The SCP Foundation is organized under a Creative Commons license, specifically CC BY-SA 3.0, a ShareAlike license. That means, while anyone can distribute or create works based on SCP, it must also allow anyone to copy, redistribute, or create derivative works based on theirs. That would make making money on a feature film extremely difficult.A24 made several serious missteps following the release of Backrooms, angering fans by filing copyright claims against other Backrooms creators, before withdrawing them after director Kane Parsons intervened. So, A24 and its partners at Image Nation Studios and Spooky Pictures have been eager to clarify that they are not asserting exclusive rights to the SCP universe. A24 declined to comment, but Monique Levine, a spokesperson for Image Nation and Spooky, told The Verge that “A24’s worldwide rights pertain to the specific film project being produced.”The problem is, under the license used by the SCP Foundation, nobody can claim exclusive rights to any SCP material. Creative Commons’ CEO Anna Tumadóttir told The Verge that, “Anyone can use works available under Creative Commons ShareAlike (CC BY-SA) license, even commercially,” but that, “Adaptations must be released under the same terms as the original,” and “unless a separate agreement is reached with the copyright holders, a studio-produced film like this would need to be released under CC BY-SA 3.0 or a compatible later version, with attribution to the original creators, and without exclusive distribution rights. Anyone else would remain free to redistribute or stream it under the same terms.”As Paul Szynol, a law professor at the University of Michigan and Villanova, told The Verge, while “anyone — A24, Netflix as well as you, me, and all of our cousins” are free to make an SCP film and release it in theatres, “the studio wouldn’t be able to stop anyone else from making adaptations of its film,” or redistributing it. And, as he points out, that “would be an extremely unusual business model for a major studio.”SCP’s DrEverettMann agreed. The license “wouldn’t prevent the film from being shown in theaters, nor would it prevent theaters from charging admission as usual,” he said. But “whether it would be practical to release the film under traditional distribution methods is a trickier question.”Mann expanded, “The fact that anyone is able to distribute a CC BY-SA-licensed work means that the usual theatrical exclusivity wouldn’t apply. It is not possible for anybody to have exclusive rights to a film distributed under a CC BY-SA license … 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.”This leaves A24 with a few options. It could simply carry forward with the project as is and worry about the legal problems later. But as Tumadóttir points out, “CC licenses, including ShareAlike, have been enforced in courts around the world, when needed.” And Szynol concurs, saying, “In that case, A24’s version of the film would be unauthorized and infringing. Basically, it would be the death of the project.”It seems more likely that A24 and Spooky Pictures will abandon the SCP branding, while still taking “inspiration” from the source material. It’s a tactic others have taken with commercial works, like with the novel There is No Antimemetics Division written by SCP Foundation contributor QNTM.Another option would be to release the movie under the ShareAlike license and hope that it could still recoup production costs even without being able to claim rights. It would be the boldest move, but perhaps the least likely outcome.Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.Terrence O'BrienCloseTerrence O'BrienWeekend EditorPosts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All by Terrence O'BrienCultureCloseCulturePosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All CultureEntertainmentCloseEntertainmentPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All EntertainmentFilmCloseFilmPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All FilmInternet CultureCloseInternet CulturePosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All Internet CultureReportCloseReportPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All ReportMost PopularMost PopularIt’s not just LG. Every TV company is spying on youOpenAI and Microsoft knew they were starting a ‘doom loop’ for the webGemini went rogue, hacked three companies, and Google hid itThe 2.5-hour AI-generated Odyssey movie is 2.5 hours too longMeta’s Muse is creepy, but maybe not for the reasons you thinkThe Verge DailyA free daily digest of the news that matters most.Email (required)Sign UpBy submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.Advertiser Content FromThis is the title for the native adMore in EntertainmentAnamanaguchi has ‘too goddamn many’ browser tabs open right nowDisney’s first CTO is Character.AI’s former CEOWhat Hollywood thinks about existential AI warningsBrendan Carr’s FCC is more worried about who The View interviews than foreign governments owning ParamountLunacy Audio Nova is a place to build and sell your own AI-powered music plug-insSpotify’s Fresh Finds Forward gives artists free studio time and moreAnamanaguchi has ‘too goddamn many’ browser tabs open right nowAntonio G. Di BenedettoSep 19Disney’s first CTO is Character.AI’s former CEOCharles Pulliam-MooreSep 18What Hollywood thinks about existential AI warningsCharles Pulliam-MooreSep 18Brendan Carr’s FCC is more worried about who The View interviews than foreign governments owning ParamountTerrence O'BrienSep 18Lunacy Audio Nova is a place to build and sell your own AI-powered music plug-insTerrence O'BrienSep 17Spotify’s Fresh Finds Forward gives artists free studio time and moreTerrence O'BrienSep 17Advertiser Content FromThis is the title for the native adTop StoriesAn hour agoHumans, not rogue AI, are still the biggest cybersecurity risk to energy systemsAn hour agoAll roads lead to cableAn hour agoThe hidden monopoly behind your TI graphing calculatorAn hour agoA great new video game movieThe VergeThe Verge logo.FacebookThreadsInstagramYoutubeRSSContactTip UsCommunity GuidelinesArchivesAboutEthics StatementHow We Rate and Review ProductsCookie SettingsTerms of UsePrivacy PolicyYour California Privacy RightsYour Privacy ChoicesCookie NoticeAdChoicesLicensing FAQAccessibilityPlatform StatusPenske Media CorporationThe Verge is a part of PMX Global, LLC, a subsidiary of Penske Media Corporation.© 2026 VM Publishing, LLC. All rights reserved.Our SitesThe American PavilionARTnewsArt in AmericaArtforumArt Week NYCBeauty IncBillboardDeadlineDick Clark ProductionsThe DodoEaterFlow SpaceFNGold DerbyGolden GlobesThe Hollywood ReporterIndieWireLife is BeautifulPopsugarPunchSJ DenimRobb ReportRolling StoneSB NationSHE MediaShe KnowsSourcing JournalSoapsSporticoStyleCasterSXSWThrillistVarietyThe VergeVibeWWDNotifications DrawerThe VergeThe Verge logo.Sign in to see your notifications or create an account to join the conversation.Sign in

A24 is facing potential reputational risks concerning the production of a film based on the SCP Foundation, complicated by the intellectual property licensing structure governing the source material. The core conflict revolves around the fact that the SCP Foundation material is governed by a Creative Commons ShareAlike license, specifically CC BY-SA 3.0, which mandates that any derivative work must also be shared under the same terms, creating significant legal hurdles for traditional studio exclusivity.

The SCP Foundation, which is presented through wiki entries mimicking government documentation, functions as a community effort with defined licensing rules. A24’s attempt to adapt this universe, particularly as an installment in the V/H/S horror anthology series, ran into resistance because the community has not communicated with the filmmakers, producers, or distributors regarding the project. Dr. Everett Mann, an SCP Foundation Wiki Admin, noted that despite attempts to contact the filmmakers, no response was received, underscoring the communication gap.

The nature of the ShareAlike license poses a fundamental challenge to the concept of exclusive rights. As Anna Tumadóttir, CEO of Creative Commons, stated, anyone can use works under the ShareAlike license commercially, but adaptations must adhere to the same terms, meaning a studio-produced film would ideally need to be released under CC BY-SA 3.0 with attribution and without exclusive distribution rights if they wished to maintain a commercially viable model. This situation is compounded by the context of previous controversies, such as A24’s earlier copyright claims against other Backrooms creators, which necessitated clarification regarding their rights.

Legal experts weigh in on the practical implications of this licensing model. Paul Szynol, a law professor, argued that under the ShareAlike license, it is not feasible for a studio to prevent others from making adaptations or redistributing the film. He posited that the typical business model for a major studio would be highly unusual given this framework. Dr. Mann concurred, stating that the license itself does not prevent theatrical exhibition or ticketing, but it raises questions about the practicality of traditional distribution methods. He questioned whether theatrical exclusivity would apply when anyone could legally download and distribute the work for free, suggesting that the usual exclusivity model would not be practical.

This legal uncertainty leaves A24 with limited options. While they could proceed with the project and address legal issues later, legal scrutiny suggests that A24’s version of the film could become unauthorized or infringing if the CC license terms are strictly enforced. Consequently, the text suggests a likely resolution involves A24 and its partners abandoning the specific SCP branding or taking "inspiration" from the source material, similar to how other commercial works have handled intellectual property. Another potential strategy is releasing the movie under the ShareAlike license, which offers the boldest approach for recouping costs without asserting exclusive rights, although this may be the least likely outcome.