A24’s reputation is on the line with the SCP Foundation movie
A24’s reputation is on the line with the SCP Foundation movie
A24 的声誉正因 SCP 基金会电影而岌岌可危
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.
继《后室》（Backrooms）取得成功后，A24 似乎正试图利用另一个互联网恐怖热潮，在《致命录像带》（V/H/S）恐怖选集系列中推出一部以 SCP 基金会宇宙为背景的新作。然而，该项目一经宣布便引发了强烈抵制，《致命录像带：SCP》目前看来已处于风雨飘摇之中。
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.
SCP 是一种类似于《后室》的都市传说（creepypasta），起源于 4chan 论坛。虚构的 SCP（特殊收容措施）基金会负责记录、捕获并收容超自然异常现象。这是一个庞大的故事体系，主要通过模仿政府机构工作文档的 Wiki 条目来呈现。这是一种通过官僚噩梦展现的科幻宇宙恐怖，非常适合“每周一怪”式的选集创作。
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.”
然而，与 A24 在《后室》项目中与该社区热门 YouTube 系列创作者合作不同，这家制片厂似乎完全没有尝试与 SCP 社区进行接触。作为 SCP 官方大本营的 SCP 基金会 Wiki 在电影宣布后发表声明称：“尽管我们尽了最大努力，但仍未与该项目的电影制作人、制片人或发行商进行任何沟通；据我们所知，他们也没有做出任何联系我们的尝试。”
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.”
SCP 基金会 Wiki 管理员 DrEverettMann 对《The Verge》表示：“自项目宣布以来，我们曾多次尝试联系他们，但至今未收到任何回复。”
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.
这不仅仅是为了赢得粉丝的好感。SCP 是一个有着明确许可规则的组织化社区。SCP 基金会采用知识共享（Creative Commons）许可协议，具体为 CC BY-SA 3.0（署名-相同方式共享）。这意味着，虽然任何人都可以分发或创作基于 SCP 的作品，但也必须允许他人复制、再分发或基于其作品进行二次创作。这使得通过长篇电影盈利变得极其困难。
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.”
A24 在《后室》发布后曾犯下几次严重错误，因对其他《后室》创作者提起版权诉讼而激怒了粉丝，直到导演凯恩·帕森斯（Kane Parsons）介入后才撤回诉讼。因此，A24 及其合作伙伴 Image Nation Studios 和 Spooky Pictures 急于澄清他们并未主张对 SCP 宇宙拥有独家权利。A24 拒绝置评，但 Image Nation 和 Spooky 的发言人莫妮克·莱文（Monique Levine）告诉《The Verge》：“A24 的全球权利仅限于正在制作的特定电影项目。”
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.”
问题在于，根据 SCP 基金会使用的许可协议，任何人不得对任何 SCP 素材主张独家权利。知识共享组织（Creative Commons）首席执行官安娜·图马多蒂尔（Anna Tumadóttir）告诉《The Verge》：“任何人都可以使用 CC BY-SA 许可下的作品，甚至用于商业用途”，但“改编作品必须在与原作品相同的条款下发布”。她补充道：“除非与版权持有者达成单独协议，否则像这样由制片厂制作的电影需要以 CC BY-SA 3.0 或兼容的后续版本发布，并注明原作者，且不能拥有独家发行权。其他人仍然可以自由地在相同条款下对其进行再分发或流媒体播放。”
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.”
正如密歇根大学和维拉诺瓦大学法学教授保罗·斯齐诺尔（Paul Szynol）对《The Verge》所言，虽然“任何人——无论是 A24、Netflix，还是你、我以及我们的亲戚”都可以自由制作一部 SCP 电影并在影院上映，但“制片厂无法阻止其他人对该电影进行改编”或再分发。正如他所指出的，这“对于一家大型制片厂来说，将是一种极其罕见的商业模式”。
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.”
SCP 的 DrEverettMann 表示赞同。他说，该许可协议“不会阻止电影在影院上映，也不会阻止影院照常收取门票费用”。但“以传统的发行方式发布这部电影是否可行，则是一个更棘手的问题。”
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.”
Mann 进一步解释道：“任何人都可以分发 CC BY-SA 许可作品这一事实，意味着通常的影院独家放映权将不适用。任何人都不可能对一部以 CC BY-SA 许可发行的电影拥有独家权利……我们不知道当人们可以在家合法免费下载电影时，还有多少人会选择花钱去影院观看。”
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.”
这让 A24 面临几种选择。它可以维持现状继续推进项目，以后再担心法律问题。但正如 Tumadóttir 所指出的，“包括‘相同方式共享’在内的 CC 许可协议，在必要时已在全球各地的法庭上得到执行。”Szynol 也表示同意，称：“在这种情况下，A24 的电影版本将是未经授权且侵权的。基本上，这将导致该项目的终结。”
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.
A24 和 Spooky Pictures 更可能放弃 SCP 的品牌标识，同时继续从原始素材中汲取“灵感”。这是其他人处理商业作品时采取的策略，例如 SCP 基金会贡献者 QNTM 所著的小说《不存在的反模因部》（There is No Antimemetics Division）。
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.
另一种选择是以“相同方式共享”许可发布电影，并希望即使无法主张权利也能收回制作成本。这将是最勇敢的举措，但或许也是最不可能的结果。