SCP-173 Licensing Hoedown Part I (Redbubble)

Got a response:

Given that they don't have a leg to stand on with regards to the counternotice, this will hopefully be the end of this particular issue. Americium241 has a bunch of other unattributed merchandise derived from SCP Foundation stuff, but that's for another time.

Further comment here: I got a message from the person who owns the store. I have redirected them to Gaffsey, but their concern is as follows: Some of the things taken down were their own drawings of SCP-173. The question is, then, does calling it SCP-173 on the shirt amount to a breach or would just having the image be fine? Or what is fine? Or is ANYTHING fine?

If they don't get in touch with your Gaffs, I'll repost their message here.


I will hash it out on SSSC when I get a chance. However Kato said "I won’t complain about you and SCP foundation using my sculpture's image unless it is used for commercial purposes." While this may be referring to the specific photo taken by Keisuke Yamamoto, it seems very unlikely. I am of the opinion that Kato would not want any representations of Untitled 2004 being used for commercial purposes. Furthermore, the note on the page says

This sculpture and its likeness may not be used for commercial purposes under any circumstances

Not "SCP-173 and its likeness." This sculpture.

I suppose that they could remove all references to SCP-173 and claim that the design for the not-173 emerged fully-formed from their head, but that would be blatantly dishonest and easily disprovable.

Most everything else on the wiki is fair game (although if you're going with visual representations, please go with something that we've been able to source, like the dragon snails), so long as it's properly sourced. If Americium241 follows the licensing guidelines and properly license and attributes everything, then I have no beef with him.

tl;dr: My opinion is representations of SCP-173/Untitled 2004, even if you fail to label it as such. Otherwise, the policy on derivative stuff remains the same.

- Gaffs

I'd say that anything obviously based on Untitled 2004, whether the original pic or a drawing or whatever, counts and should be excluded from commerciality.

— Drewbear

Alright. All that's well and good, but here's the million dollar question: is it our job to track those down? We're supposed to be policing people that aren't following the CC licensing for us. This image was available on the internet for years before that. Hell, the picture itself was being spread as a "creepy picture" before 173's inception.

Is it our job to go after people using the image?

I, personally, tend to think that that level of duty isn't out job, guys. We have permission to use the image, and others are flaunting that use. Adaptations of the image aren't CC, either, since the picture hasn't been released as CC. We're getting in a very murky place here, guys, and this is a ridiculous amount of work you're wanting to undertake.

I don't think that the number of commercially-available SCP-173-related things is really that high, and I'd just as soon try to cover our asses. I mean, the most likely option is that the people selling 173-related stuff were unaware of the whole situation; it wasn't until this summer that we even bothered to mention "oh yeah, this isn't CC." So yeah, I think that we're within our bounds to ask people to take down 173 stuff that they're selling, or at least updating them on the situation.

On an unrelated note, I got into contact with Americium241.

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License