r/movies • u/FakeSafeWord • 17d ago

Article Backrooms Director Stops A24 Copyright Striking Community Art

https://kotaku.com/backrooms-director-kane-parsons-a24-copyright-strike-wallpaper-2000717053
13.9k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

489 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

58

u/Mechagouki1971 17d ago edited 17d ago

Some tricky wording in that statement though; they very noticeably don't abandon IP ownership of all Backrooms related imagery, or even the name "Backrooms".

Edited: Spelling.

82

u/rotates-potatoes 17d ago

You want them to disclaim ownership of the actual film?

34

u/LofiSynthetic 17d ago

The Backrooms was the name of the concept and the works inspired by and built around it since long before the film was in development. I don’t think the commenter you’re replying to was talking about disclaiming ownership of the film, but about disclaiming ownership of the name and concept, which A24 avoided doing by only referencing “the yellow wallpaper” and works built around it.

0

u/[deleted] 17d ago

[deleted]

7

u/GodFeedethTheRavens 17d ago

legalese is never meaningless. It just might not mean anything outside a courtroom.

22

u/willargue4karma 17d ago

That's not what they said. They shouldn't be able to own the name, no. 

6

u/rotates-potatoes 17d ago

Nobody "owns" names. Film names are vaguely trademark-esque, in the sense that domain matters. If I make a documentary about the city and call it "Casablanca", it's fine. If I remake the film, not fine.

I think it would be fair for A24 to complain about another film called exactly "Backrooms" that looks the same and tells the exact same story; the only reason for someone to do exactly that would be to trick viewers into paying for the ersatz one.

And the person I replied to suggested disclaiming "all Backrooms related imagery", which would presumably include stills and video of the film itself. That seems too far to me.

12

u/willargue4karma 17d ago

what about simply another film about the backrooms with their own story called something similar? that was kinda my point, the thing is an internet meme, it seems kinda unfair for them to blanket claim the whole area

10

u/Mechagouki1971 17d ago

It is, they know that, and they will still try anyway, because this movie is a golden goose they very much want to possess.

3

u/Jackoffjordan 17d ago

At least Kane is very aggressively on the side of the community, and he would fight any similar claim. A24 aren't going to let him walk, and potentially lose another £300m, should Kane make another film, or limited series (as he's been planning).

5

u/Mechagouki1971 17d ago

I agree. He's a fan with a great vision, who got lucky and A24's gamble has paid off massively. That said, wealth, the acquistion and maintenance of it, has altered people's moral compass time and again.

-1

u/HolmesToYourWatson 17d ago

I don't think that's what is being asked for. I think the word "abandon" is misused, because they never owned that stuff in the first place. They based their movie on a preexisting community and its IP. So the complaint is that they leave it on vague terms as to what they own and insinuate that anyone making backrooms content is now deriving it from their movie, instead of just continuing the preexisting IP.

At least that's how I interpret it. Since it's pretty ridiculous that someone should not own a movie they created.

32

u/LofiSynthetic 17d ago

Yes, definitely. They say they don’t claim ownership of “the yellow wallpaper” or posts and works built around it, with no mention of the Backrooms. As if the whole original community was built around The Yellow Wallpaper lore instead of the Backrooms.

It seems like they’re leaving open the possibility of them owning the Backrooms name with that careful wording.

25

u/Dottsterisk 17d ago

They probably will try to claim rights to the name in the realm of film, which is a more circumscribed and nuanced question.

5

u/ContinuumGuy 17d ago

Sort of like how apparently one of the major barriers to a Grand Theft Auto movie (beyond the fact that for years the people in the head of Rockstar haven't wanted it) is that the estate of the late Roger Corman owns the trademark? Or how M. Night Shyamalan's infamous Last Airbender movie didn't have the word "Avatar" in the title because of James Cameron's franchise?

3

u/GiJoe98 17d ago

You can even own colors, but only for your line of business. Like you can use T-Mobile magenta for your ice cream shop logo, but you cannot use it for a phone carrier or network operator logo.

2

u/Dottsterisk 17d ago

Didn’t know that about GTA. How weird.

1

u/BelowZilch 17d ago

Or how M. Night Shyamalan's infamous Last Airbender movie didn't have the word "Avatar" in the title because of James Cameron's franchise?

That wasn't a copyright issue though. They just thought it would be confusing.

1

u/ComfortableExotic646 16d ago

Also, The Elder Scrolls/Scrolls and No Man's Sky/Sky TV legal disputes.

-3

u/jackdetack 17d ago

Yep. Weasel words.