D&D (2024) D&D Player's Handbook Video Redactions & Takedowns

There's a lot of YouTube videos looking at the brand new Player's Handbook right now, and some of them include the YouTuber in question flipping through the new book on screen. A couple of those video creators have been asked by WotC to redact some of the content of their videos, with one finding that their video had been taken down entirely due to copyright claims from the company. It appears to be the folks who are flipping through the whole book on-screen who are running into this issue which, it seems, is based on piracy concerns.

Jorphdan posted on Twitter that "Despite fulfilling [WotC's] requests for the flip through video I was issues a copyright strike on my channel. Three strikes TERMINATES your channel. I don't think going over the 2024 PHB is worth losing my channel I've been working on since 2017. I'm pretty upset as none of this was said up front and when notified I did comply with their requirements. And I see other creators still have their videos up. Videos that are not unlike mine. Covering WotC is not worth losing my channel... Meanwhile please subscribe to my D&D free channel the Jocular Junction, where I'll most likely be making the majority of my TTRPG videos."

​

Mike Shea, aka Sly Flourish, also posted a walkthrough of the Player's Handbook. While he didn't receive a copyright takedown action, after an email from WotC he has blurred out all the page images. "Note, I blurred out pictures of the book after Hasbro sent me an email saying they worried people would take screenshots of the book and build their own. Yes, it's complete b******t, but we must all do our part to ensure four billion dollar companies maximize shareholder value."

Popular YouTuber DnD Shorts had a video entitled 100% Walkthrough of the New Player's Handbook in D&D. That video is no longer available. However, his full spoilers review is still online.

 

[Nikosandros]

Good nows for Jorphdan!

View attachment 375522

@Mistwell that was the other one. Glad that WotC acknowledged how things were.

 

[Nikosandros]

No. There are 23 pages.

The reason is to stop people from copying their creation.

The blurring does that. Without stepping on the toes of Sly's creations.


If WotC is pushing for more than blurring, then yea. That would be too far.

But the line is pretty clear. You make it, it's yours to sell. WotC made the book, Sly made his option about the book.

Yes, well even WotC seem to be walking back, at least partially. So maybe, things weren't so clear-cut has you claim.

 

[Mistwell]

@Mistwell that was the other one. Glad that WotC acknowledged how things were.

Yes it was wrong to strike him after he had already complied with their request. Glad that got resolved.

 

[Parmandur]

If someone put up a "review" of a RPG product and had literally no flip-through, showed off no art, etc. it wouldn't be worth my time to watch.

The best preview I've seen was Treantmonk, and he did no flip through and showed no art.

 

[Mistwell]

Who are you referring to?

You I guess? Which video of yours got the take down notice. Wasn't it the one with a bunch of shots of the actual pages, not in order but a huge number of them over a longer period of time?

Or am I thinking of someone else. If so, which one of yours got the take-down notice?

 

[Mistwell]

The best preview I've seen was Treantmonk, and he did no flip through and showed no art.

He even retyped some rules to make it easier to read.

 

[Mistwell]

Yes, well even WotC seem to be walking back, at least partially. So maybe, things weren't so clear-cut has you claim.

They should not have issued a strike through YouTube to people who had complied with their request. That was their "walk back." I don't think they're walking back the "Don't show most of the pages of our book on YouTube" request.

 

[Nikosandros]

The best preview I've seen was Treantmonk, and he did no flip through and showed no art.

Do you agree that is quite common to make flip through of RPGs products in reviews? Normally WotC itself has nothing against if for their products.

 

[Parmandur]

They should not have issued a strike through YouTube to people who had complied with their request. That was their "walk back." I don't think they're walking back the "Don't show most of the pages of our book on YouTube" request.

Miscommunication between the marketing and legal people, feels like.

 

[Nikosandros]

They should not have issued a strike through YouTube to people who had complied with their request. That was their "walk back." I don't think they're walking back the "Don't show most of the pages of our book on YouTube" request.

You are right about this, so point conceded. However, it was not "most of the pages". They don't want any of the pages shown.