 Ahoy, ahoy, and welcome to the new year. Meet the same boss, same as the old boss. Anyway, today we are going to talk a little bit about how you're wrong about SCP-6789. You heard me. So what is SCP-6789? Well, last year, Mayesh, I think it was, there was a sandboxed SCP draft based around a piece of art called Siren Head. Siren Head is a creation of and owned by Trevor Henderson, and it's not creative commons, as all the other works on the SCP Wiki are. The problem I think is that a lot of people just on the internet in general don't really understand how intellectual property rights work, or how copyright works, and it's fine most of the time, because if you're just sharing images with your friends, that's one thing. But for like an established IP intellectual property, in this particular case we're talking about Siren Head, you can't just steal an image and write an article, you can even just steal an image and write a story about it. Like, the Trevor Henderson, it's not just an image, there is a surrounding lore behind it. Unfortunately, most people don't care about that. So people who are fans of, and people who are fans of creepypasta, like the slender man, Siren Head, and a variety of other possible types of, let's say images with regards to scary, they want to be spooky scary. So they go online, they find these things, and a lot of people make these images of cryptids, which are like anomalous entities of some sort. But of course, the problem we run into is that it's not at all fair to the creator to do these sorts of things to their property. It's a little bit like, imagine that you see a house that you really, really, really like. And then you're just like, you know what, that's my house now. I'm going to do whatever I want to with it, and you can't stop me. Because if you didn't want me to, you shouldn't have put it on that, you shouldn't have put it on that property in the first place. And a lot of people don't realize that that's what it is when they steal on the internet. And there's a general culture, and I've been around on the internet for over 20 years at this point, not over 20 years, about 20 years. And maybe right at 20 actually, anyway, rather unimportant. I've been on the internet for a while, and I have seen this evolve from over time. And the attitude of the kids today on the internet, and God thinking kids today, is exactly the same attitude of kids when I was on the internet originally, and I'll be honest with you, when I very first started, I didn't really understand how images could be owned by somebody. It's just information. But as I slowly became more and more of a creator, and especially even got more involved in the SCP Wiki, I became much more understanding of the problems. So why is it a problem? Just in general. Because this was a sandbox article. It didn't even go onto the Wiki. Why was it the SCP-6789 couldn't even be on the sandbox? And there's a very simple answer to that, that I think it's not necessarily the primary driving factor by the way, but I think it's a good example for people that they can clearly and deliberately understand. And that is Slender Man. So way, way back when Slender Man first started, there were projects that were sort of blessed by the creator. So Slender Man originated on the Something Awful forums by the user Eric Nudson or Victor Surge, regardless. He created the imagery and some of the, I believe, the original lore behind it. And this was inspirational to a lot of people. I mean, they're the, was it Marble Hornet stuff on YouTube? This is like the origination of like true horror fiction on YouTube, right? But the important part was, is that the creator never gave up his rights to the IP, not once. He may have blessed several projects to go forward, but he always maintained his own rights to object to things and objected to quite a lot of things. There's a lot of low quality stuff out there that he basically said you can't do. And a lot of people miss that because they also see these stuff that he said that they could do. One of the low quality things that he allowed was the actual Slender Man film. And that is important. It took a while to go from its creation, which I believe was, yeah, in 2009, I'm looking at the page right now, to the movie I believe in 2018. So it took nine years of development before it went from a post on the Something Awful forums to a film. But what's important about that film, and we'll be clear here, is we're talking about a film with like, and they have a range here, so it's impossible to know for sure, I guess, but somewhere between a $10 and $28 million budget. If, and this is a weird way to think about it, if Slender Man was contaminated by the SCP Wiki, and you'll understand why I use the word contaminated in a second, there's a likelihood this film would have never been made. And he optioned out the rights a long time ago, and probably still got paid pretty well for the fact that this film got made, and actually somehow made money. It's an 8% score on Rotten Tomatoes, but we're not here to talk about how the Slender Man movie sucks. Regardless. So what is contaminated by the SCP Wiki mean in this context? A properly held intellectual property is going to be easy to distribute and sell. And when someone calls you up and says, we'll pay you X number of dollars to option the rights to this property, or they decide, let's start a development process for the possibility of making a movie based on your thing. That's really popular, right? If, in the barest of terms, they look in the research and see that you're connected to somehow a creative commons work, that could kill that deal immediately. I mean, do we not want these people to be successful? And when I say these people, I include myself in this. Do we not want people to be successful? Are we that kind? Is that who we are as a community? I'm not saying the SCP content, and this is the other thing when you see this when people talk about how, how come we can't make you have an SCP movie? Or how can we have that? The creative commons license doesn't preclude the creation of external media, but it does preclude the investment of any serious dollars into these sorts of projects, right? You'd have fan made projects, but they're not going to most of the time fan made projects are not going to have a budget in the 10 to 28 million dollar range. You're not going to get rich off of your SCP adaptation. It's just not going to happen. So if there's a possibility that a studio is looking at your property and then they see it's on the SCP wiki and they see it's under a creative commons license, even if it's not supposed to be there, even if it's temporarily, they might just sit back and go, that's not really worth our time because it's a risk. It's an investment risk. And it's not fair to the creators to do that to them, which is the reason why putting SCP putting siren head up as an SCP, even in a sandbox, which at the bottom says, unless otherwise noted, this property is this the content of this page is licensed under a creative commons 3.0, share like attribution license says that at the bottom is not just irresponsible, but actively harmful. And I want to be clear about this. It's not always about the money either. People should have control over the content that they put out. And if like you create some sort of wonderful idea, it should not be possible for somebody else to just sit back and go, screw it. I want to put up a version of it that sucks because I like it and I enjoy it. Not everything is like that, especially important to be clear about this. There's a strong distinction, right, between fan fiction about a thing that hasn't been actually adapted or paid for by some big studio and created into a thing yet. We're just talking from a moral standpoint. There really is no legal distinction here, just from a moral standpoint. If you want to create fan fiction about Game of Thrones, at least those people already got paid, so your fan fiction isn't going to affect that for them. But fan fiction of Siren Head that you try to license under a creative commons license, you very well may be taking this thing that you love and making it less likely for more stuff like that to be created in the future because this person will never ever get paid for it. It's not the only important thing. But we live in a world where money matters. Like there's the I wish the world was this way and this is how the world actually is and there needs to be some sort of a meeting of the minds in between, right? Understand that your actions can be actively harmful to the creators that you enjoy if you steal their shit and try and make it seem like nobody owns it. And the other half of that is that serious money is necessary for you to create something of like a high quality. Even the the short films that we have of fan made short films have decently sized budgets like for short films and for indie filmmakers. Well, they're not maybe not even decent. Decent is really not the right word to use. There's true shoestring budgets, but they are still a lot of money has to be put in to make something of quality these days. Anyway, I just wanted to cover a couple of things in this particular because this has been this has been bugging me since last year. I wanted to do an interview with Trevor Henderson and I've actually taught him a little bit over Discord and Twitter in the past, but we've never made it able to make that match up. But even though I didn't get a chance to do that interview, I still wanted to talk about like the serious issue. And now that we're further away from the inciting incident, I think it's a little easier for us to understand where the problems came from. And that was, you know, like there was a video done talking about S.C. Siren Head is an S.C.P. And then I got taken down and people were complaining about it and like, oh, you can't believe you use the takedown. But like, let me tell you something. Sometimes it's hard to get ahold of us of YouTube creators. I'm just going to throw that out there. Sometimes you have no choice. Like they won't respond. And then you're like, I issue a takedown and they go, how come you didn't contact me? I've never done that personally, but I've seen it happen to other people who I know fairly well in the YouTube community. And it's so astonishingly. The reaction from outside the community is so astonishingly always hostile, right? The assumption is that the that that anyone who does copyright takedown is acting in bad faith when they're not always doing that. But anyway, he issued a takedown on this on his content that was being stole and monetized by other people. And everyone's like, how dare you do that? How dare you assert your own property rights? I want to live in your house. It's mine now. And as a content creator, I'm not saying that there aren't degrees to this, but going after after independent contact content creators who haven't been paid yet is to me personally beyond the pale. Like if there's a there's a legal argument to be made, right? Of course, like it's always illegal. It's always legally questionable. But from a moral standpoint, at least let them get paid first. Anyway, that's it. Thank you very much for watching. If you enjoyed this video, please scroll down and hit the subscribe button and then hit the notification bell next to that so you're notified when I upload new videos. And I'm talking to you, Carl. Yeah, that's right. I'm talking to you, Carl. Yeah, I see you watching my videos and not subscribing. That's going to change today. And then head on over to patreon.com forward slash de Sumerian and pledge at any level, like everybody here on the screen already has, including Dr. Jay Redacted, who was pledged at a hundred dollars, Sinjeriki, who was pledged at a hundred dollars and Morgan, who is pledged at forty dollars. It is nice to know that I'm not alone out here. And I will see you all again on Thursday.