WotC WotC (Mistakenly) Issues DMCA Takedown Against Baldur's Gate-themed Stardew Valley Mod

Wizards of the Coast recently issued a DMCA takedown notice against Baldur's Village, a popular fan-created Stardew Valley mod which was based on Baldur's Gate 3.

Created by a modding team called Nexus Mods, the mod featured BG3 characters such as Astarion and Shadowheart, 20+ NPCs, and various locations and events. The mod, which has had over 4,000 downloads, took over a year to make, according to the team, and garnered praise from Swen Vincke, the CEO of Larion, the company which made Baldur's Gate 3, who also posted about the situation on Twitter:

“Free quality fan mods highlighting your characters in other game genres are proof your work resonates and a unique form of word of mouth. Imho they shouldn’t be treated like commercial ventures that infringe on your property. Protecting your IP can be tricky, but I do hope this gets settled. There are good ways of dealing with this.”

The mod went into "moderation review" on March 29th. However, it seems this was a 'mistake'--WotC has since issued a statement:

"The Baldur's Village DMCA takedown was issued mistakenly—we are sorry about that. We are in the process of fixing that now so fans and the Stardew community can continue to enjoy this great mod!"

So, the mod is back again! To use it you need the have the Stardew Modding API, the Content Patcher, and the Portraiture mod.

This isn't the first time WotC has 'erroneously' issued takedown notices against fans. In August 2024, the company took action against various YouTubers who were previewing the then-upcoming 2024 D&D Player's Handbook. A few days later, after some public outcry, WotC reversed its decision.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Honestly, I have often wondered about the legality (from a derivative works perspective) of streaming games. I guess since you can't copyright rules, and streaming games are usually in new, bespoke settings created by the group/GM, it is not a big deal. but could WotC order the takedown of a stream of, say, Curse of Strahd?

(IANAL) Probably, but the risk is that a judge would rule against WotC and potentially open the floodgates to much more permissive views of derivative works.

 

[Burnside]

Streaming games using WotC IP is actually expressly permissible under WotC’s fan content policy:

Fan Content Policy | Wizards of the Coast

Wizards of the Coast Fan Content Policy.

company.wizards.com

You’re even allowed to derive passive/sponsor income doing it, and you can even ask the audience to tip you. You just can’t put it behind a paywall. This makes sense, since actual play streams are basically free marketing for WotC.

The Stardew Valley mod violates the terms of the fan content policy because the policy specifically says you can’t use WotC IP “in other games.”

 

[darjr]

Larian studios has a response

Update: Wizards of the Coast Apologizes for 'Mistaken' DMCA on Fan's Baldur's Gate 3 Stardew Valley Mod - IGN

Wizards of the Coast has issued a DMCA takedown notice on a fan mod of Stardew Valley that adds Baldur's Gate 3 characters, despite the mod previously having been publicly praised by Larian Studios CEO Swen Vincke. And now, Vincke has responded to the takedown as well.

www.ign.com

 

[Micah Sweet]

Before anyone says it: WotC is NOT required to do this to keep the IP. "Defend it or lose it" is for trademarks, not copyrights.

Still waiting for that post-scarcity Star Trek future. How's matter replication coming along?

 

[darjr]

I guess WotC has apologized and said it was a mistake?

Update: Wizards of the Coast Apologizes for 'Mistaken' DMCA on Fan's Baldur's Gate 3 Stardew Valley Mod - IGN

Wizards of the Coast has issued a DMCA takedown notice on a fan mod of Stardew Valley that adds Baldur's Gate 3 characters, despite the mod previously having been publicly praised by Larian Studios CEO Swen Vincke. And now, Vincke has responded to the takedown as well.

www.ign.com

 

[Lidgar]

It’s like Shodinger’s DMCA. Or a poorly timed April’s Fools gag.

 

[Faolyn]

According to reddit (so summon a salt elemental and take a few grains from it, perhaps), someone made a BG3 tarot deck, did a kickstarter, raised 65k+, and WotC decided to bring down the DMCA hammer on everything because of that.

 

[humble minion]

I guess it’s time to reset the ‘days since Wizards did something miserably oppressively joyless and then claimed it was a mistake when it people started calling them out on it’ counter back to zero. Again.

 

[Reynard]

According to reddit (so summon a salt elemental and take a few grains from it, perhaps), someone made a BG3 tarot deck, did a kickstarter, raised 65k+, and WotC decided to bring down the DMCA hammer on everything because of that.

I bought 3D printed BG3 character minis from Etsy. i wonder how much that seller has made, and how much they would have to make in order to draw WotC's attention/ire.

 

[Thomas Shey]

See, streaming HELPS D&D so it's okay...

Honestly, I have often wondered about the legality (from a derivative works perspective) of streaming games. I guess since you can't copyright rules, and streaming games are usually in new, bespoke settings created by the group/GM, it is not a big deal. but could WotC order the takedown of a stream of, say, Curse of Strahd?

You can order a takedown of damn near anything; whether it would stand up to legality is almost irrelevant given how hair-trigger YT and other sites are about this sort of thing.