Gizmodo61%

'Backrooms' Almost Got Trapped In Copyright Hell 55%

By Justin Carter62%

7/18/2026, 6:50:40 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Confirmation Bias, and Negativity Bias, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 37.5% saturation with 163 hits. Analysis detected 854 faulty-reasoning hits from 435 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 53.5% and a BS Rank of 55% (8,063 of 17,922 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 55.00% of the article peer group.

A24&#8217;s *Backrooms* is one of <a href="https://gizmodo.com/audiences-worldwide-are-still-getting-lost-in-backrooms-2000782585">2026&#8217;s biggest movies</a>. 
But the same week it came to <a href="https://gizmodo.com/backrooms-digital-release-date-rent-buy-2000784145">home platforms</a>, it managed to step in some hot water and draw negative attention. 
Earlier this week, indie creators claimed to be hit with copyright strikes for making *Backrooms*-related merch. 
At least one work was based on a liminal wallpaper that inspired the initial creepypasta that predates the film, and the artist alleged the takedown came following a complaint from A24. 
Similar copyright claims hit several indie developers, including Davilkus Games, who made *Backrooms: Level 94* for the Google Play Store. 
(Davilkus later clarified this was an &#8220;automated error&#8221; on Google&#8217;s side and not a copyright claim.) 
Upon hearing of these issues on <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/backrooms/comments/1uxbpze/comment/oxsj21e/">Reddit</a>, a user believed to be director Kane Parsons posted that he&#8217;d look into the matter and that it &#8220;shouldn&#8217;t be happening. 
&#8221; Parsons, to his credit, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch? 
v=7u8HyrWa8KA">has previously called</a> *Backrooms* an &#8220;open-source, public-domain idea&#8221; since it first took life in online spaces. 
The ire was mainly directed toward A24, who&#8217;s <a href="https://gizmodo.com/a24-wants-you-to-be-nice-about-its-google-ai-deal-2000778542">already caught flak</a> for entering a <a href="https://gizmodo.com/indie-darling-a24-takes-75-million-from-google-for-ai-research-2000775368">teamup with Google</a> for AI research. 
A user believed to be Parsons later explained to a <a href="https://www.reddit.com/media? 
url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Frm191q8bpodh1.jpeg">private Discord channel (reported on Reddit)</a> what A24 had told him: an &#8220;outsourced system error&#8221; led to the wallpaper and game takedowns when it was initially meant to copyright camrips of the *Backrooms* film that had been spreading around social media. 
&#8220;They&#8217;ve been very adamant about not wanting to touch the community. 
Any legitimate action of the sort suspected would be unacceptable,&#8221; the user explained. 
&#8220;They&#8217;re working rapidly to resolve it and will probably issue a statement. 
&#8221; 
&#8220;*Backrooms* is one part of an infinitely bigger ecosystem, rife with creatives who have every right to tell their own version of the story,&#8221; said A24 via an Instagram Stories post on the *Backrooms* Instagram page. 
&#8220;[We] make no claim of ownership over the yellow wallpaper, the original post referencing it, or any of the community works that have since been built around it. 
We will continue to support the artists who, like Kane, were inspired by it. 
&#8221; 
For those who get paid making things based off popular IP, copyright strikes are no joke and can seriously mess with their business. 
In *Backrooms*&#8217; case, this controversy couldn&#8217;t have come at a worse time for A24: along with the aforementioned AI partnership that&#8217;s turned folks against the indie studio, it&#8217;ll also have to fend off <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/kane-parsons-curry-barker-and-the-multi-million-dollar-battle-for-gen-z-eyeballs-1236651171/">competitors like Warner Bros.</a> hoping to snag Parsons for future projects. 
[via <a href="https://www.polygon.com/a24-backrooms-copyright-strikes-controversy/">Polygon</a>] 
Confirmation Bias
16.8%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
12.2%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
1.6%
Loss Aversion
3.2%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
2.5%
Pessimism Bias
0.2%
Negativity Bias
16.6%
Self-Serving Bias
8.3%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0.2%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
2.8%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
1.6%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
2.1%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
1.6%
False Dilemma
0.2%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
7.8%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
6%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
14%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0.2%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
8.7%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
9.4%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
7.1%
Unattributed Quote
37.5%
Quote-first Misdirection
2.8%
Biased Writer Voice
21.8%
Indoctrination
2.8%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
8.3%

435 words analyzed.

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.