Gizmodo⁠58%

'Backrooms' Almost Got Trapped In Copyright Hell ⁠56%

By Justin Carter⁠72%

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 ⁠56% (9,399 of 21,135 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 55.50% 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>] 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 16.8%Justin Carter: 7.1%Gizmodo: 4.1%Confirmation Bias16.8%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 1.5%Gizmodo: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 12.2%Justin Carter: 2.7%Gizmodo: 3.0%Availability Heuristic12.2%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 2.1%Gizmodo: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 2.5%Gizmodo: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.9%Gizmodo: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 1.6%Justin Carter: 6.2%Gizmodo: 5.6%Framing Effect1.6%This article: 3.2%Justin Carter: 0.8%Gizmodo: 0.5%Loss Aversion3.2%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 1.4%Gizmodo: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 1.0%Gizmodo: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.5%Justin Carter: 4.1%Gizmodo: 3.9%Optimism Bias2.5%This article: 0.2%Justin Carter: 1.3%Gizmodo: 2.2%Pessimism Bias0.2%This article: 16.6%Justin Carter: 9.9%Gizmodo: 7.6%Negativity Bias16.6%This article: 8.3%Justin Carter: 0.6%Gizmodo: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias8.3%This article: 0.2%Justin Carter: 0.6%Gizmodo: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.2%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Justin Carter: 0.4%Gizmodo: 0.9%In-Group Bias2.8%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 1.2%Gizmodo: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 1.6%Justin Carter: 5.4%Gizmodo: 2.8%Halo Effect1.6%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.1%Gizmodo: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 2.3%Gizmodo: 1.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 2.1%Justin Carter: 0.4%Gizmodo: 0.4%Primacy Effect2.1%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.0%Gizmodo: 1.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 1.6%Justin Carter: 3.4%Gizmodo: 4.1%Appeal to Authority1.6%This article: 0.2%Justin Carter: 3.0%Gizmodo: 1.4%False Dilemma0.2%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 1.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.8%Justin Carter: 7.6%Gizmodo: 5.4%Hasty Generalization7.8%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 2.1%Gizmodo: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.3%Gizmodo: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 6.0%Justin Carter: 2.8%Gizmodo: 4.9%Appeal to Emotion6.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.3%Gizmodo: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 14.0%Justin Carter: 4.3%Gizmodo: 3.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)14.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.5%Gizmodo: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.2%Justin Carter: 0.8%Gizmodo: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.2%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.2%Gizmodo: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 8.7%Justin Carter: 5.1%Gizmodo: 2.0%Anecdotal8.7%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.4%Justin Carter: 2.5%Gizmodo: 2.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.4%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.3%Gizmodo: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 7.1%Justin Carter: 0.4%Gizmodo: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy7.1%This article: 37.5%Justin Carter: 10.1%Gizmodo: 4.7%Unattributed Quote37.5%This article: 2.8%Justin Carter: 2.9%Gizmodo: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection2.8%This article: 21.8%Justin Carter: 8.3%Gizmodo: 13.6%Biased Writer Voice21.8%This article: 2.8%Justin Carter: 2.9%Gizmodo: 1.6%Indoctrination2.8%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.0%Gizmodo: 1.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 8.3%Justin Carter: 7.2%Gizmodo: 3.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…8.3%

435 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers37%attributed speech272writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageDavilkus Games • 16 words • 100.0% coverageKane Parsons • 29 words • 100.0% coverageKane Parsons • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageKane Parsons • 22 words • 100.0% coverageKane Parsons • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageA24 • 12 words • 100.0% coverageA24 • 1 words • 100.0% coverageA24 • 36 words • 100.0% coverageA24 • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Kane Parsons

100%flagged-word coverage
70 attributed words43% of attributed speech69% writer coverage
0%45.0%90.0%Unattributed Quote+53.6 ptsWriter: 36.4%Kane Parsons: 90.0%90.0%Biased Writer Voice-12.1 ptsWriter: 22.1%Kane Parsons: 10.0%10.0%Quote-first Misdirection+17.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Kane Parsons: 17.1%17.1%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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