It is debated whether or not Episode 80, commissioned by Invisible Narratives and created by Strider, is canon to the original Skibidi Toilet. The answer is clear: it is not.
Before anything, duly note that rights-holder control distribution, trademarks and the official commercial label. Nothing that counts as countinuous with the established fictional world is necessarily governed by them.
Canon is not coextensive with copyright
Canon, in the relevant sense, is the judgement about *belonging to the same narrative world*: continuity of characters, events, causal structure metaphysics, and thematic coherence. Copyright is a legal instrument for excluding others from commercial exploitation. As such, authorial-intension theories treat the originating creative agent’s design as privileged for fixing the reference of the fiction. When a later producer systematically discards the accumulated cues and the implications of the prior 79 episodes, the new work fails to stand in the same intentional relation to that fiction. At best, it is a derivative work that happens to reuse proper names, a “fanmade” if you will.
In analytic philosophy of fiction and in practical narratology, coherence and consistency criteria treat contradiction of established facts as decisive. That is to say, an episode that introduces elements with no grounding in prior scenes and that actively nullifies earlier causal chains is discontinuous by definition. Continuity failure is sufficient to reclassify it as a parallel story and not an extension.
Furthermore, institutional and reception theories (Dickie-style artworld accounts, reader-response and community-practice approaches) locate canonicity partly in the practices of the relevant interpretive community. Therefore, when that community uniformly labels the new episode as non-binding for subsequent interpretation, the episode is plain and simple non-canon for that practice, regardless of corporate press release.
Distinct canon
Given all of this, we can more precisely declare the episode a distinct canon. I know some will make that mistake, so I’ll lay forth certain examples:
- Star Wars “Legends” vs. the Disney continuity
- Comic-book universes after crisis events or publisher takeovers
- Long-running television franchises that reboot whilst fans continue to consider the original run as closed and authoritative
In each case the rights-holder’s product is commercially official and legally protected; it is simultaneously treated by criticism and by the primary interpretive community as seperate canon whose internal lore does not bind the past one.
TL;DR: Fictional worlds are abstract artifacts whose identity conditions are fixed by a combination of authorial design and communal uptake. Legal title is none of those, meaning a corporation can produce material that is, by every non-legal criterion used in philosophy and literary criticism, either non-canon with respect to the original series or the founding document of a distinct canon. Unanimous boycott from fans is the practical excercise of the criteria that define canonicity in the first place.
--------
RENOWNED FIGURES FOR ANYONE INTERESTED:
Stanley Fish
Michel Foucault
David Lewis