r/mildlyinfuriating • u/slick7studios • Jul 16 '26

I just wanted a hot dog Apperantly A24 suddenly thinks they own all of the backrooms.

Post image

Many people have been reporting copyright strikes for backrooms fan games, textures, and other references on Google play, Twitter and other spaces. Apparently the company thinks if they make a movie that suddenly they own the source material that existed years before the movie was even conceptualized. For an idea of how ridiculous this is, it's like saying James Cameron owns the Titanic and every survivor's story because of the movie he made.

With how shitty the world is becoming at what point is it enough, it's literally 1984, can't have shit anymore, even decades old community internet creepypastas apparently.

31.4k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

997 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2.2k

u/asian_chihuahua Jul 17 '26

Sounds like they contracted out a general "protect our IP" contract to a firm, and the firm basically just copyright struck everything that had to do with the backrooms, probably using an AI to make a list and then nail everything.

Still, A24 needs to take a hit for this because they are ultimately responsible for the firm's actions here.

469

u/mackeriah Jul 17 '26

I would absolutely put money on them having lazily used AI. 

42

u/Sileniced Jul 17 '26

I think that corporate greed made the ai exactly how they wanted it to be

15

u/powderhound522 Jul 17 '26

The fucking unbelievable irony of using the copyright infringement machine to detect suspected copyright infringement

4

u/whitedolphinn Jul 17 '26

Laziest. Dumbest. Most fucked up. Shit movie. EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

191

u/centaur98 Jul 17 '26

Funny thing is you or I could also claim to act on behalf of A24 and start issuing copyright takedowns. The copyright system on most online platforms is fucked. For example TheFatRat had a case where some random anonymous person claimed one of his original songs and YouTube refused to do anything about it until it went viral.

61

u/IllustriousBobcat813 Jul 17 '26

Copyright in general is a terrible system, it only benefits megacorporations and stifles creativity.

Just look where the funding got all these pro copyright groups are coming from

51

u/TheLittleMuse Jul 17 '26

There's a lot of shitty copyright abuse, but saying it only benefits megacorps is wild. You're saying the right for artists to protect their work and stop others using it without their permission is bad.

2

u/Zestyst Jul 17 '26

I’m saying that capitalism is bad, and copyright, like all systems in capitalism, bend to serve the person with the most money.

1

u/TheLittleMuse Jul 17 '26

So your argument is copyright can be abused by those with money, so lets take away the right for artists to own their art and make it even easier for corporations to cheat artists.

Not seeing your logic here.

3

u/Radiie Jul 17 '26

The argument is to overhaul or replace the current system with something that does little more to protect the everyday person and not the corporations/wealthy that continually exploit the system. No one argued that artists shouldn’t own their own creations, only that corporations shouldn’t exploit a system meant to do exactly what you’re saying. That’s just not the reality we live in.

1

u/Zestyst Jul 17 '26

Dog I’m not crafting a masterful argument to #own people online; I’m lamenting that the need to accrue capital has corrupted an artform that is core to my identity.

1

u/PreDope Jul 17 '26

Bootlegs are always going to exist with or without copyright law. There are other better creative licenses artists can release under that isn't copyright. Creative Commons has plenty of licenses that protect the artists work and allows people to use it freely for commerical or non-commercial use based on the license it's released under.

Copyright is Copywrong. Open source and creative Commons is the true way.

3

u/Mind-The-Mines Jul 17 '26

The ship has sailed for this to be useful.

Like anything anyone makes while gainfully employed will be claimed by their employer.

You only have rights when you can afford to exercise them. The system is designed to stop small people from fighting back, not fucking protect them.

1

u/pixelrubbish Jul 17 '26

No doubt the system also benefits indie artists who have their content stolen… but the system was almost certainly designed for big publishers, with huge budgets dedicated to protecting their massive portfolios.

1

u/MrMonkify Jul 17 '26

It doesn't take a lot of effort to find creative types from youtubers to musicians to inventors talking about how their work was stolen or copied without them having any real recourse. First of all you have to have registered the copyright, a step that gets overlooked pretty regularly. Then you have to have the money to pursue the claim through the legal system and it not exactly cheap, even having a formal cease and desist can cost over a thousand dollars, a full trial could be anywhere from a few hundred thousand dollars to well over a million. This is what I assume the person you were responding to was eluding to, that kind of cost can make pursuing a copyright claim unreasonable for anyone without very deep pockets.

1

u/TheLittleMuse Jul 17 '26

Artists automatically have copyright over their art as soon as it is fixed in a tangible form.

Patents have to be registered, but this discussion is about copyright.

Sending a cease and desist letter can cost anything from nothing to thousands. You can write it yourself, use an online service, or hire a lawyer.

A trial can of course vary from 0 to millions, but I think this says more about the legal system than copyright itself. Suing big corporations for anything can be problematic, so saying this a problem with copyright is ignoring the actual problem imo.

-1

u/IllustriousBobcat813 Jul 17 '26

How many artists do you think have the money, time, and energy, to sit through drawn out and massively expensive litigation to protect their copyright?

Besides, humans have created and profited off art for millennia without copyright, we will be perfectly fine.

The stiffling of creativity is a much greater drawback than any imagined small creator protection (it’s debatable if this even exists at all under the current system).

10

u/InfiniteComboReviews Jul 17 '26

I'd argue thats more of a flaw with our garbage legal system favoring the wealthy than it is with copyright.

2

u/IllustriousBobcat813 Jul 17 '26

I’m sure it is technically possible to create a legal system and laws where copyright makes sense, for example by protecting small artists from larger corporations. But that just isn’t the world we live in.

4

u/InfiniteComboReviews Jul 17 '26

I agree 100%. I just feel like the idea behind copyright is a good one and its our broken court system that has ruined it. Yeah the world sucks.

1

u/IllustriousBobcat813 Jul 17 '26

The courts in 1710 weren’t exactly all that friendly to non-wealthy people either. Copyright has been about protecting the owning class since it was invented.

1

u/InfiniteComboReviews Jul 17 '26

Shame we haven't been able to fix the court system in over 300 years.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/TheLittleMuse Jul 17 '26

humans have created and profited off art for millennia without copyright, we will be perfectly fine.

Guess who was profiting off art. It wasn't the artists. The system is flawed now but before artists had no rights. That favoured the wealthy far, far more.

-1

u/IllustriousBobcat813 Jul 17 '26

I’m going to need a source on that one

2

u/TheLittleMuse Jul 17 '26

A source on what? That before copyright artists didn't have the right to their work? Well that's fairly easy, copyright is the thing that gives an artist those rights. Look up the Statute of Anne, it is the first copyright law. With the invention of the printing press, printers would print books etc without the writers permission, making money off them whilst the writer got nothing.

The Statute of Anne gave the rights to the author. Before it belonged to the printers and publishers. If the copyright belongs to the printers and publishers and not the writer, who do you think is making money off it?

1

u/IllustriousBobcat813 Jul 17 '26

That artists couldn’t make money off their art in say 1300 for example.

You know, the claim you made.

1

u/TheLittleMuse Jul 17 '26

I said "profit" which has a slightly different meaning. As in most artists were paid extremely poorly and then the publishers would go on to make the vast majority of the profit, as well as all of the money from any reprints etc.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/freestamp Jul 17 '26

If you legitimately registered your copyright which is pretty inexpensive and not very hard, you are very well protected. It’s actually a huge benefit to those without big finances to protect their creations. Acting like it isn’t helpful is literally suggesting these big corporations should be ALLOWED to steal your work without potential repercussion. Copyright is a very obtainable means of protection that is hard to beat when legitimate. No system is perfect, but it’s far away from useless.

1

u/IllustriousBobcat813 Jul 17 '26

Try suing disney to protect your copyright, and I’ll wait for the results.

0

u/TopHat84 Jul 17 '26

Where did he say registering was expensive? He didn't. He said litigation related to it is.

0

u/freestamp Jul 17 '26

Yes but the implication of the post was that copyright was useless and not necessary. Citing Disney, a literal creative company that of course aggressively defends its copyrights, as if that’s the only time copyright issues come up, is a very narrow and misleading narrative. Also demand letters or cease and desist letters with a listed registration are not that expensive and often do the trick before litigation takes place.

The reason I responded was because copyright is a cheap and effective way to create prima facie evidence that you own the work. If you think litigation over copyright ownership is expensive, it would be a lot more so without being able to show up to court with a government record that stands as proof of ownership.

2

u/TopHat84 Jul 17 '26

Ah yes, now we get the obligatory "prima facie evidence" drop. It's funny how many reddit threads eventually get a 1L eager to show everyone they learned a Latin phrase.

Nobody here is arguing that registration isn't useful. The point was that enforcing your rights is expensive. Registration being cheap and creating "prima facie evidence" doesn't pay for a lawsuit. And a C&D only works if the other side decides to listen. If they don't, you're back to the exact litigation problem he was talking about.

So you're arguing PAST my point (well the other guys point).

3

u/PreDope Jul 17 '26

It doesn't just stifle creativity, it burdens advancements in medicine and technology.

1

u/SecondAccountIsBest Jul 17 '26

This is how the DMCA is written, we need to change international law to fix this, it's not a company/platform specific issue.

148

u/SuperBackup9000 Jul 17 '26

The thing is they do actually have a claim, and it’s due to their wallpaper design. OP conveniently left that out of the explanation because it’s not all Backrooms stuff, it’s literally just the wallpaper they made, which I do believe a few newer games did just copy it 1:1.

It’s incredibly silly, yeah, but it’s also silly how many people have been successfully rage baiting by leaving out exactly what the actual “problem” is

139

u/fonk_pulk Jul 17 '26

Isnt the wallpaper sold by A24 a recreation of the wallpaper that was at the Oshkosh basement? Technically whatever company made the original wallpaper could own the copyright, if they're still in business.

34

u/Training_Ruin3151 Jul 17 '26

Ownership of a wallpaper pattern that has been circulating the internet for 10 years and most likely existsed as long as wallpaper has been around is not anybody's to own

64

u/lucitribal Jul 17 '26

The company that made the original wallpaper no longer exists. At best, ownership of it is in limbo.

79

u/Xontroller Jul 17 '26

You could say it's stuck in the backrooms

10

u/Rich-Option4632 Jul 17 '26

Take my upvote and get out.

8

u/GarshelMathers Jul 17 '26

Can't get out. Also stuck in the backrooms

2

u/Xontroller Jul 17 '26

Take my upvote and... Wait. Damn

2

u/MisterShmitty Jul 17 '26

Oh my B’Gosh you’re right!

69

u/atfricks Jul 17 '26

That wallpaper design predates the movie dude, A24 didn't make it and has no claim to it either.

46

u/demotsusucku Jul 17 '26

They don't.

The wallpaper is the same from the original 4chan picture from 2019

8

u/iLikeBugsNFishes Jul 17 '26

You saying they have a claim here isn't true. Not sure why you're adamant everyone else here is confused and falling for ragebait? You effectively made up a copyright law and an ownership claim in an effort to try to make sense of a nonsensical copyright claim. Why? What is the point of this?

2

u/BobertRosserton Jul 17 '26

It’s so clear that you don’t understand the situation lmao.

3

u/PurpleMTL Jul 17 '26

Sounds like they should get their shit together. And pay for this dumbassery

2

u/InebriatedPhysicist Jul 17 '26

Them hiring another company to do a shitty thing is not less shitty. I do not believe any company that tells me something unconfirmable that is exclusively good for their bottom line, like this not being intentional.

2

u/northSideways Jul 17 '26

This happens multiple times a year, automated copyright systems being shit ain't new news. It'll blow over

2

u/Memito9 Jul 17 '26

no way A24 didnt know or didnt do this on purpose.

this will be interesting tho because there was already a bunch of backrooms content before the film was ever released

shouldnt be hard ti prove backrooms is/was a community driven idea

1

u/Rock_mage Jul 17 '26

Some of these third parties are scummy. It's usually a company in a foreign country gets the rights in that country to show X thing. For an example pokemon Z moves were heavily copyright striked, not by the pokemon company, but a toy company.

1

u/whitedolphinn Jul 17 '26

I hate everything that has to do with with movie so fucking much.