Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A24 Is Copyright Striking Backrooms Artwork Older Than the Movie

thegamer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–39 of 39 posts

Re: A24 Is Copyright Striking Backrooms Artwork Older Than the Movie

#31

Post by [deleted] »

api wrote: post #7
hresvelgr wrote: post #5

Backrooms is a cultural artefact that was created in the commons. The idea of any degree of ownership is nonsensical and it's ludicrous they tried.

I once heard Hollywood described as a network of law firms that happens to make movies. It's the most litigious industry on Earth, or one of them. They don't just sue you and I. They sue each other constantly, battling over royalties and residuals and rights and IP theft (which does happen in Hollywood of course). I love good film as art but the industry seems certifiably insane in lots of ways: litigious, nepotistic…

[deleted]

Re: A24 Is Copyright Striking Backrooms Artwork Older Than the Movie

#32

Post by Teever »

underlipton wrote: post #12
api wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I once heard Hollywood described as a network of law firms that happens to make movies. It's the most litigious industry on Earth, or one of them. They don't just sue you and I. They sue each other constantly, battling over royalties and residuals and rights and IP theft (which does happen in Hollywood of course). I love good film as art but the industry seems certifiably insane in lots of ways: litigious, nepotistic…

I feel like there should be some sort of direct "judicial review" by non-attorneys. The only reason stuff like this is possible is because we're governed by lawyers; they've captured law and shaped it towards their ends, and away from its utility as dispute resolution so that people can get back to non-law, non-dispute life.

Sortition is the term you're looking for: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition

Western democracies would be far better off with some sort of legislative body that was comparable in power to the existing bodies such as the senate / parliament.

Another solution to our existing problems in western democracies would be a mechanism to select 'none of the above' on a ballot. If a super majority of the electorate chooses the 'none of the above' option than that election is a do-over and the candidates who ran are forbidden from running in that jurisdiction for a period of time -- let's say five years.

A couple cycles of that will flush the crap out of our system real quick.

But like you said... the system is run by lawyers, for lawyers, so we're not likely to get these kinds of changes.

Re: A24 Is Copyright Striking Backrooms Artwork Older Than the Movie

#33

Post by michaelmrose »

MYEUHD wrote: post #29

For those who did not bother to open the article: > UPDATE: 2026/07/18 10:51 EST > A24 Responds > In an official response posted to the Backrooms movie Instagram account, A24 explained, "As Kane Parsons has made clear, Backrooms is one part of an infinitely bigger ecosystem, rife with creatives who have every right to tell their own version of the story. Yesterday we were made aware of an automated claim submitted to…

Every fake automated action should generate a real fine paid to the party they screwed over even when or if it's reversed.

Re: A24 Is Copyright Striking Backrooms Artwork Older Than the Movie

#34

Post by protocolture »

tverbeure wrote: post #27
protocolture wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, this but all IP. The Trollface guy did apparently get a copyright upheld and tbh that was one of the things that put me off copyright.

There’s dirty copyright abuses and lawsuits left and right, but the one that really puts you off is a legitimate case where a little guy actually created something?

The little guy managed to prove through an absolute avalanche of community remix that he made the original weird little drawing on the internet. On websites basically designed to be anonymous and contribution free, in communities that really hate people identifying themselves.

It taught me that without removing copyright as a legal concept, people can come from left field to claim things after they get popular and ruin what has been adopted as community owned.

Like the trollface image itself is one thing, but its popularity, that makes it valuable in terms of merchandising, has come from not just the original image but its endless viral remixes and crossovers. Thats communal labor that has suddenly been enclosed and monetised.

You can have a community of iconoclasts communally creating content without expectation of recompense and one bloke can stick their head up and ruin it for everyone.

etc etc etc. Needs to die. For this reason and what Conde Nast did to Doc Savage.

Re: A24 Is Copyright Striking Backrooms Artwork Older Than the Movie

#35

Post by ameen »

michaelmrose wrote: post #33
MYEUHD wrote: post #29

For those who did not bother to open the article: > UPDATE: 2026/07/18 10:51 EST > A24 Responds > In an official response posted to the Backrooms movie Instagram account, A24 explained, "As Kane Parsons has made clear, Backrooms is one part of an infinitely bigger ecosystem, rife with creatives who have every right to tell their own version of the story. Yesterday we were made aware of an automated claim submitted to…

Every fake automated action should generate a real fine paid to the party they screwed over even when or if it's reversed.

I don’t see why this isn’t the norm, if you build something “destructive”, you absolutely need to compensate those affected by those actions.

Re: A24 Is Copyright Striking Backrooms Artwork Older Than the Movie

#36

Post by fhdkweig »

Teever wrote: post #32
underlipton wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like there should be some sort of direct "judicial review" by non-attorneys. The only reason stuff like this is possible is because we're governed by lawyers; they've captured law and shaped it towards their ends, and away from its utility as dispute resolution so that people can get back to non-law, non-dispute life.

Sortition is the term you're looking for: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition Western democracies would be far better off with some sort of legislative body that was comparable in power to the existing bodies such as the senate / parliament. Another solution to our existing problems in western democracies would be a mechanism to select 'none of the above' on a ballot. If a super majority of the electorate chooses…

> Another solution to our existing problems in western democracies would be a mechanism to select 'none of the above' on a ballot. If a super majority of the electorate chooses the 'none of the above' option than that election is a do-over and the candidates who ran are forbidden from running in that jurisdiction for a period of time -- let's say five years.

If you are starting a new government from scratch, I think it would work. But bolting it onto an already broken system would create perverse incentives for the outgoing broken politicians to deliberately nominate terrible replacement candidates. If everyone chose 'none of the above', the broken politicians would get to stay in power forever (or alternatively the position is left vacant forever).

I am a big fan of rank-choice voting. I like the fact that the incumbent legislatures are scared of it. If they are scared, it must be a true threat to them. While this would be a threat to both Democrats and Republicans, it is mostly the red states that try to ban in, going so far as to amend their state constitutions. Alaska has/had it for a brief moment and as a result have a higher number of independents in their state. But even they have factions trying to undermine it.

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=alaska+rank+choice+voting+r...

https://www.wptv.com/news/state/florida-bans-ranked-choice-v...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_Un...

Re: A24 Is Copyright Striking Backrooms Artwork Older Than the Movie

#37

Post by Hizonner »

happytoexplain wrote: post #6
Retr0id wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless they can explain what they've changed to make sure it never happens again, it's not resolved.

This is pointlessly hostile and counterproductive. They expressed a positive position and intention, which is wildly more just (as in justice) than what we get from the vast majority of producers in any medium, and is ten times more practically significant than whether or not they have a mechanism to prevent false positives from happening even ephemerally .

"Counterproductive" is when you enable feckless idiots to do whatever they want if they say "aw shucks" enough.

Re: A24 Is Copyright Striking Backrooms Artwork Older Than the Movie

#39

Post by underlipton »

gamblor956 wrote: post #38
underlipton wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And lobbyists? Judges? (Particularly appellate.)

Most lobbyists are not lawyers. All judges are lawyers.

Most of the decision-making power within lobbying organizations lies with lawyers. Effectively, most lobbyists are lawyers, regardless of if most of the staff within those orgs are not.

And lobbyists write our laws.

Post reply on HN