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.

 

[JDR]

People need to stop buying anything made by WotC.

I have for 2 years now

 

[innerdude]

People need to stop buying anything made by WotC.

I have for 2 years now

If we're talking about D&D the RPG? 14 years and counting.

(Honor Among Thieves earned some of my cash. And I suppose at some point BG3 will as well.)

 

[BMaC]

I buy products, I don't buy the companies who provide products.

I have no relationship with a company prior to a transaction, the transaction itself takes a few moments, and then once the transaction itself is over I have no relationship with the company afterwards.

So as long as I'm fine with the product I choose to purchase... anything else is nothing I care about.

This is a sadly amoral way to live life.

 

[EthanSental]

The ire toward Wotc reminds me a little of fans of sports teams whose front office always makes the wrong trade or signing. They stick around to point out that the first round draft pick should have been an edge rusher…not a running back or a tight end. That sports analogy is from a Atlanta falcons football fan who is still sting from the 28-3 Super Bowl loss 9 years ago

 

[Bae'zel]

Somewhat ironically, the outrage over WotC's corporate greed seems to be a really profitable topic for internet rage click bait.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This is a sadly amoral way to live life.

One person's 'sadly amoral' is another person's 'rational'.

 

[Maxperson]

Generally they're provided with examples and/or lists of targets, but beyond that it's up to judgement. This of course assumes that they contract out to a BP company/IP firm

I believe you. What I'm saying is if the hired firm has the ability to make judgment calls, it's stupid not to provide that company with a list of accepted uses of the product. It's painfully obvious that not doing so will result in bad calls like the one in this thread.

When you know(or should know) something bad will happen if you don't do it, and then you don't do it anyway, it's not an accident when it happens. It's negligence on your part. Whether or not WotC did the act themselves, they still bear the responsibility for their negligence.

 

[Burnside]

I believe you. What I'm saying is if the hired firm has the ability to make judgment calls, it's stupid not to provide that company with a list of accepted uses of the product. It's painfully obvious that not doing so will result in bad calls like the one in this thread.

When you know(or should know) something bad will happen if you don't do it, and then you don't do it anyway, it's not an accident when it happens. It's negligence on your part. Whether or not WotC did the act themselves, they still bear the responsibility for their negligence.

According to their own guidelines, this would not have been an accepted use of the IP.

Fan Content Policy | Wizards of the Coast

• Don’t use Wizards’ IP in other games. This includes your own or other people’s games or game components (e.g., rule books, tokens, figures), regardless of whether it is distributed for free;

The third party agency was likely totally correct, according to their brief, to flag this as a violation.

It became a "mistake" and a case of "accepted use" only when it blew up and became bad PR.

 

[Maxperson]

According to their own guidelines, this would not have been an accepted use of the IP.

Fan Content Policy | Wizards of the Coast

• Don’t use Wizards’ IP in other games. This includes your own or other people’s games or game components (e.g., rule books, tokens, figures), regardless of whether it is distributed for free;

The third party agency was likely totally correct, according to their brief, to flag this as a violation.

It became a "mistake" and a case of "accepted use" only when it blew up and became bad PR.

That's a possibility, but I don't see in the article or WotC where it was said that they didn't have prior permission. That's why I'm operating on the assumption that they did.

In any case, my statements have for the most part been general statements about companies and known uses being flagged, so they are still accurate.

 

[Steampunkette]

A mistake can result from intentional action. And you can have the legal authority to do something, but it can still be a bad idea.

IANAL, but it is my understanding that the initial DMCA takedown from WotC on this BG3 mod was completely legally legit. And yet . . . still a mistake. It's not clear if it was a mistake from the beginning, or if WotC decided it was a mistake after the fact, but it was a mistake. Why else "fix" it?

Why is it a mistake? Because it makes WotC look like the corporate bully and doesn't really serve their interests. It's a PR mistake. So, they walked it back in the hopes of smoothing over that bad PR.

The issue is: That's still not a mistake. Lemme let Picard explain it:


Everything worked as intended. Every process triggered in an appropriate manner based on what it was designed to do. And they successfully DMCA'd a proper target for that action.

There was no mistake in the triggering of the process. There was no mistake in the action. There was no mistake in the result.

The "Mistake" was assuming the backlash against their action would be negligible. Which is not what they're claiming was a mistake. Thus they are claiming it is a mistake, after the fact, in order to deflect responsibility.

If you make a plan to do something, and you follow the plan, and you do the thing, and then you get caught and face consequences... You don't, then, get to declare it a mistake after the fact to ignore your culpability or responsibility for your own actions.

To make it more obvious:

A guy finds out his wife is cheating on him. (WotC learns people can infringe on their material!)
He plans to attack the guy she's cheating with. (WotC puts together teams and automation)
He shows up outside the guy's house and beats him down. (The team and automation issues a DMCA)
He gets arrested. (People are outraged)
At trial he says "This was all a mistake! I never should have beat that guy down!" (Oopsie! We made a mistake!)
He still gets tried (and probably convicted since he confessed) for Assault and Battery. (People accept it wasn't intentional?!)