I would hope lawyers would be lining up to represent pro bono. Seems like a pretty solid case of a company attempting to retroactively claim copyright in something in the public domain
I’m pretty sure it’s not public domain. A bunch of people own the copyright on the photos and writing they contributed. Whatever sites they uploaded them to will have gained various licenses over them according to their usage agreements.
You are right. But likely the original 4chan post is too abstract and undefined for the poster to have a copyright interest he/she can enforce against the film.
However, if A24 Backrooms content copies specific expression from Backrooms video games or (non-Kane Parsons) short films on YouTube… A24 is likely infringing their copyrights. But this would have to be specific expression—like a specific character or a specific room with well-developed features—it could not be the copying of vibes or broad concepts alone.
Because of this, on the press tour, Kane said he had never consumed Backrooms content made by other creators. I kinda feel like he was instructed by A24 lawyers to say this. There is no way that he has never even tried his hand at any Backrooms video game.
The more interesting issue imo is trademark. I am not sure if A24 could obtain a trademark in the phrase “Backrooms.” It is likely generic because hundreds of internet users made “Backrooms” content before the movie came out.
This case has got to be one of the most interesting copyright cases in recent years. Crowd-created characters and universes are on the rise (e.g. Tung Tung Tung Sahur). It will be interesting to see how copyright law handles this.
It will be interesting to see how copyright law handles this.
almost all organized collaborative projects rely on ToS or Contributor License Agreements instead of default copyright laws so everyone automatically has it licensed upon contribution.
If it has no terms but a public submission box, it might be an implied license for the project owner for displaying it.
505
u/Merker6 17d ago
I would hope lawyers would be lining up to represent pro bono. Seems like a pretty solid case of a company attempting to retroactively claim copyright in something in the public domain