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.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

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

I don't think it's particularly rational to not consider the wider impact of one's actions.

 

[Umbran]

This is a sadly amoral way to live life.

Mod Note:
How about you not make this discussion personal, please and thanks.

 

[Dire Bare]

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?!)

So . . . semantics then. Okay.

In my own life, when I make a deliberate choice . . . and it goes as expected but with unforeseen consequences that go badly for me . . . I consider that a mistake. And if possible, I'll try to correct for it.

I'm glad we're focusing on the important things, like the meaning of the word "mistake".

 

[CleverNickName]

Maybe a little? Here's the current download graph from the Nexus Mod page (on the second image, I moused over the graph to display the numbers for today). Page views and downloads are up slightly today, but they both peaked on March 10th.

And here's today's graph. Looks like all of this talk about Wizards of the Coast didn't really have an impact on the popularity of the Baldur's Village mod.

 

[Steampunkette]

So . . . semantics then. Okay.

In my own life, when I make a deliberate choice . . . and it goes as expected but with unforeseen consequences that go badly for me . . . I consider that a mistake. And if possible, I'll try to correct for it.

I'm glad we're focusing on the important things, like the meaning of the word "mistake".

Yeah, that's not how they're presenting it.

"We didn't mean to do it." is their use of mistake, here. They are trying to deflect blame, not apologize.

There is a big difference.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I don't think it's particularly rational to not consider the wider impact of one's actions.

Well, you aren't me.

 

[Faolyn]

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

When it comes to the necessities of life, one must sometimes buy from companies that are stupid, shady, or downright evil (e.g. Nestle, who owns a billion subsidiaries, which makes it hard to avoid them entirely).

RPG books are not a necessity of life, however.

(For the record, I'm not saying WotC is shady or evil; I'm saying they've done a lot of stupid things.)

 

[mamba]

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

it’s rational if the only thing (general) you care about is yourself

 

[mamba]

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.

that is an odd assumption to make, it’s much more likely imo that they had no permission

 

[Clint_L]

Yeah, that's not how they're presenting it.
View attachment 401301
"We didn't mean to do it." is their use of mistake, here. They are trying to deflect blame, not apologize.

There is a big difference.

They literally apologize in the quotation you cite: "we are sorry about that." How is that a deflection?

So, to clarify:

1. Someone makes a mod using WotC's IP in a way that has been clearly and publicly prohibited by WotC.

2. WotC/WotC's subcontractor issue a copyright strike that they are well within their rights to issue.

3. Nevertheless, they see the creative and popular way that their IP is being used in this instance and almost immediately (within one day?) rescind the strike, along with apologizing for it.

And the outrage is because...?

Like, what are folks looking for? If WotC dug in their heels (well within their legal rights!), I can see protesting if you happen to disagree with them protecting their IP to that extent. But...they already agreed with you. So what is the issue? That they took a closer look at this particular situation and very quickly decided to give it a pass?