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.

 

[CleverNickName]

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?

I know right? The discussion isn't really about Larian or Baldur's Gate 3 anymore. It's about Wizards of the Coast, and for some folks, they will always be damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

 

[Steampunkette]

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?

They're using Mistake to present it as an Accident and apologizing for an accident.

Rather than apologizing for the real problem: Being deeply litigious and flinging takedown orders at everything they can.

That is the deflection. "We're sorry there was an accidental takedown order." The takedown order wasn't an accident, and it wasn't issued "Mistakenly". They FA and FO and tried to pretend the didn't mean to FA.

 

[Dire Bare]

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.

Maybe. Probably. Still a mistake that WotC decided needed fixing.

The BG3 mod did violate WotC's fan policy, they were in the legal right to send the DMCA take-down. They likely had a third-party company doing the DMCA checking, but we don't know for sure. Doesn't matter really.

It's certainly possible that WotC's reaction is after-the-fact, likely even, but also possible that this is not a decision they would have made if they were being more careful. WotC/Hasbro is a big company, and for the right hand not to know what the left hand is doing is not surprising.

But really, does it matter? Is WotC acting out of malice or lack of concern for fans and the community, or are they just trying to navigate a complicated situation of folks using their IP without permission in fan projects? Is WotC making stupid mistakes or just mistakes? Are they acting in a manner worse then other, similar companies?

How does this negatively affect me? How does this affect the fan community? Not much, IMO.

Where you fall on that is a personal choice, of course. But for me . . . there is no evidence WotC is acting out of malice or unconcern for others. There is no evidence they are acting significantly differently from other media companies in today's online environment. WotC screwed up, got called out on it, and then quickly fixed the problem.

Good enough for me. I'm going to still purchase that dragon anthology later this year, and the Forgotten Realms books too. Gonna keep my DDB subscription active also. If others make different choices . . . okay.

 

[Dire Bare]

They're using Mistake to present it as an Accident and apologizing for an accident.

Rather than apologizing for the real problem: Being deeply litigious and flinging takedown orders at everything they can.

That is the deflection. "We're sorry there was an accidental takedown order." The takedown order wasn't an accident, and it wasn't issued "Mistakenly". They FA and FO and tried to pretend the didn't mean to FA.

Is WotC deeply litigious? Flinging takedown orders all over the place? I haven't seen evidence of that. It could be happening off my radar or perhaps I'm forgetting the last huge thread complaining about the Evil Overlords of the Coast.

 

[Steampunkette]

Maybe. Probably. Still a mistake that WotC decided needed fixing.

The BG3 mod did violate WotC's fan policy, they were in the legal right to send the DMCA take-down. They likely had a third-party company doing the DMCA checking, but we don't know for sure. Doesn't matter really.

It's certainly possible that WotC's reaction is after-the-fact, likely even, but also possible that this is not a decision they would have made if they were being more careful. WotC/Hasbro is a big company, and for the right hand not to know what the left hand is doing is not surprising.

But really, does it matter? Is WotC acting out of malice or lack of concern for fans and the community, or are they just trying to navigate a complicated situation of folks using their IP without permission in fan projects? Is WotC making stupid mistakes or just mistakes? Are they acting in a manner worse then other, similar companies?

How does this negatively affect me? How does this affect the fan community? Not much, IMO.

Where you fall on that is a personal choice, of course. But for me . . . there is no evidence WotC is acting out of malice or unconcern for others. There is no evidence they are acting significantly differently from other media companies in today's online environment. WotC screwed up, got called out on it, and then quickly fixed the problem.

Good enough for me. I'm going to still purchase that dragon anthology later this year, and the Forgotten Realms books too. Gonna keep my DDB subscription active also. If others make different choices . . . okay.

Oh. No. It's not out of a malice or disdain or anything.

It's just that WotC is a deeply litigious company and developed a system to enact that litigiousness every chance it gets. And sometimes that litigiousness results in backlash. Like when they hired the Pinkertons.

My issue is, entirely, in that they're deflecting the responsibility onto the idea that it was somehow an accident or a mistake that the system they designed worked in the way they designed it to.

Because it's a form of gaslighting and emotional abuse. Clint L specifically pointed out that they apologized and thus aren't deflecting blame or responsibility, which is the -intention- of their specific apology.

But they're not apologizing for the thing they did. They're apologizing for an imaginary mistake in their system.

As someone who has dealt with a -lot- of gaslighting and stuff I hate fake apologies. It's why I call them out, so hard.

 

[Dire Bare]

Oh. No. It's not out of a malice or disdain or anything.

It's just that WotC is a deeply litigious company and developed a system to enact that litigiousness every chance it gets. And sometimes that litigiousness results in backlash. Like when they hired the Pinkertons.

My issue is, entirely, in that they're deflecting the responsibility onto the idea that it was somehow an accident or a mistake that the system they designed worked in the way they designed it to.

Because it's a form of gaslighting and emotional abuse. Clint L specifically pointed out that they apologized and thus aren't deflecting blame or responsibility, which is the -intention- of their specific apology.

But they're not apologizing for the thing they did. They're apologizing for an imaginary mistake in their system.

As someone who has dealt with a -lot- of gaslighting and stuff I hate fake apologies. It's why I call them out, so hard.

Emotional abuse?

Okay, I'm out.

 

[Steampunkette]

Emotional abuse?

Okay, I'm out.

Ah, I see. We're not allowed to discuss how companies are made up of people and that people use emotionally abusive rhetoric and gaslighting to manipulate public perception of them and the people or companies they work with or for.

Cooooooooooooool. Cool cool cool cool cool.

With deep sincerity: Recognizing nonapologies is an important skill, everyone. Develop it.

 

[BrokenTwin]

Even insofar as "things I dislike WotC for doing", this feels fairly milquetoast. I may hate the modern iteration of IP law, but you know you're taking a risk when you make a project using someone else's IP.
I do think WotC's apology is standard corpo nonsense, but they did back down pretty much immediately. And I never would have heard of this mod if it hadn't been for this incident, so they probably wouldn't have had to deal with too much backlash if they had stuck to their guns.
Could they do better? Probably, but you should never expect corporations to be moral actors.

 

[Distracted DM]

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.

Yup, IP enforcement is absolutely a balance when deciding what to enforce on. PR is totally a consideration. You can have the legal right to remove something, but if there is a bad backlash for it, is it really worth enforcing your IP in XY instance? will you lose more than you gain?

 

[Dire Bare]

Ah, I see. We're not allowed to discuss how companies are made up of people and that people use emotionally abusive rhetoric and gaslighting to manipulate public perception of them and the people or companies they work with or for.

Cooooooooooooool. Cool cool cool cool cool.

With deep sincerity: Recognizing nonapologies is an important skill, everyone. Develop it.

You're allowed! But for me, this conversation has moved somewhere extreme.