The announcement that A24 is moving forward with a feature film set in the SCP Foundation universe has ignited a firestorm of criticism from the very community that birthed the creepypasta phenomenon. Fans and administrators of the SCP Foundation Wiki quickly pointed out that the studio had not reached out for any collaboration or permission before revealing the project, titled V/H/S: SCP. This lack of engagement stands in stark contrast to A24’s approach with the Backrooms franchise, where the studio worked directly with the creator of a popular YouTube series.

Community Reaction and Licensing Concerns

In an official statement posted on the SCP Foundation Wiki, administrators emphasized that “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, a wiki admin, told The Verge that multiple attempts to contact the studio went unanswered. The backlash is not merely about goodwill; it touches on the legal framework that governs the SCP universe.

The SCP Foundation operates under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 (CC BY-SA 3.0) license. This license permits anyone to use, adapt, and even sell works derived from SCP material, provided that any derivative work is also released under the same CC BY-SA terms and includes proper attribution. Consequently, no entity can claim exclusive rights over any SCP‑based creation.

Legal Implications for a Major Studio Release

Creative Commons CEO Anna Tumadóttir clarified that while commercial use is allowed, adaptations must retain the ShareAlike condition. “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,” she said. Under those terms, anyone else would remain free to redistribute or stream the film under the same license.

University of Michigan and Villanova law professor Paul Szynol echoed this, noting that A24, Netflix, or any individual could legally produce and exhibit an SCP film, but the studio would be powerless to stop others from making adaptations of its own movie or redistributing it. He described such a model as “extremely unusual” for a major studio that typically relies on exclusivity to recoup investments.

Potential Paths Forward for A24

DrEverettMann added that while theaters could still charge admission and show the film, the inability to enforce exclusivity raises practical concerns: “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 dilemma leaves A24 with limited options. The studio could proceed and risk infringement claims, which Creative Commons has enforced in courts worldwide, or it could drop the SCP branding and merely draw inspiration from the source material—similar to how the novel “There Is No Antimemetics Division” by SCP contributor QNTM has been treated.

Another, far less likely, route would be to release the film under the CC BY‑SA license itself, hoping to recoup costs despite lacking exclusive rights. As the backlash continues, the fate of V/H/S: SCP remains uncertain, highlighting the tension between Hollywood’s traditional IP strategies and the open‑nature of internet‑born creative commons projects.