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.

 

[Faolyn]

Emotional abuse?

Okay, I'm out.

Earlier, you said to me:

WotC, of course, isn't a person but rather an ever-changing roster of individuals within the company. The mistakes WotC makes today are not made by the same people as the mistakes of yesterday. But still, companies tend to develop corporate personas or reputations . . . there are definitely companies I avoid and companies that frustrate me but I still patronize them . . . my ire or irritation with WotC has not yet risen to the level requiring a personal boycott yet. Although the OGL mess certainly tested me!

So people--the "ever-changing roster of individuals" in WotC--can make mistakes, but they can't also intentionally lie and mislead?

Look, I don't know if WotC is actively gaslighting people. But they have chosen to use the "mistakes were made" excuse instead of saying something along the lines of "From a very technical point of view, the SV/BG3 mod violates our IP's usage terms, but we feel that the spirit and purpose of the mod does not; therefore, we apologize for the actions of [whatever/whoever flagged the mod] and will remove our DMCA, and update the [terms or whoever/whatever does the flagging] so that events like this occur in the future."

 

[Dire Bare]

Earlier, you said to me:

So people--the "ever-changing roster of individuals" in WotC--can make mistakes, but they can't also intentionally lie and mislead?

Look, I don't know if WotC is actively gaslighting people. But they have chosen to use the "mistakes were made" excuse instead of saying something along the lines of "From a very technical point of view, the SV/BG3 mod violates our IP's usage terms, but we feel that the spirit and purpose of the mod does not; therefore, we apologize for the actions of [whatever/whoever flagged the mod] and will remove our DMCA, and update the [terms or whoever/whatever does the flagging] so that events like this occur in the future."

Can WotC's employees lie when posting apologies for the company? Of course.

Are they in this instance? IMO, there is no evidence of that. Do they have a history of dishonest communications? Not to my perceptions or memory, no.

Are the apologies given very "corporate" and avoid directly taking responsibility for any wrong-doing? Sure, that's Corporation 101. It ceased bothering me decades ago.

 

[Clint_L]

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.

But they are demonstrably NOT being deeply litigious.

This is like bizarro world, where big company agrees to let little guy use their stuff for free, and we damn them for it.

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.

SO TERRIBLE! They are apologizing in the wrong way! Those MONSTERS!

Guy violates WotC's openly published and easily reviewable IP rights.

WotC says "Stop," takes a day or so to review the situation, then says "Sure buddy - go ahead. We apologize. Looks really awesome!"

This forum: "NOT SO FAST!"

 

[Dire Bare]

But they are demonstrably NOT being deeply litigious.

This is like bizarro world, where big company agrees to let little guy use their stuff for free, and we damn them for it.

SO TERRIBLE! They are apologizing in the wrong way! Those MONSTERS!

Guy violates WotC's openly published and easily reviewable IP rights.

WotC says "Stop," takes a day or so to review the situation, then says "Sure buddy - go ahead. We apologize. Looks really awesome!"

This forum: "NOT SO FAST!"

My assumption is that the lawyerly folks at WotC (or their subcontracted firm) correctly identified the BG3 mod as against policy and flagged it with a DMCA. That's what lawyers do.

When the internet outcry arose (and fully justified at that), it was likely the execs at WotC who reviewed the situation, not the lawyers . . . and probably thought, "Ah man, not only is this bad PR, but this is exactly the type of thing we should be allowing!" And so, made it happen.

No lies, no gaslighting, just changing course in response to fan outcry.

Just an assumption, none of us really know what's going on behind WotC's doors, of course.

 

[Steampunkette]

But they are demonstrably NOT being deeply litigious.

Hmm... Copyright law allows them to issue a takedown...

Got to Law to settle disputes.

HMMMMMMMMM

It's almost like having a small army of lawyers looking for every possible copyright infringement to slap with a DMCA takedown is, by it's nature, an example of their litigiousness. Much like the Pinkerton fiasco recently.

Weird how that works.

This is like bizarro world, where big company agrees to let little guy use their stuff for free, and we damn them for it.

Oh, nah. I'm not damning them for the little guy using it. I'm damning them for using manipulative language to avoid culpability. For issuing a nonapology. Have the entire time.

SO TERRIBLE! They are apologizing in the wrong way! Those MONSTERS!

Right? Can you -imagine- apologizing for something that didn't happen in order to pretend you apologized for something that did happen? It's almost like that's manipulative and shady and being called out as such.

Guy violates WotC's openly published and easily reviewable IP rights.

WotC says "Stop," takes a day or so to review the situation, then says "Sure buddy - go ahead. We apologize. Looks really awesome!"

This forum: "NOT SO FAST!"

That is certainly an interpretation of events that you have come to, there.

 

[Dire Bare]

View attachment 401319
Hmm... Copyright law allows them to issue a takedown...
View attachment 401320
Got to Law to settle disputes.

HMMMMMMMMM

View attachment 401321

It's almost like having a small army of lawyers looking for every possible copyright infringement to slap with a DMCA takedown is, by it's nature, an example of their litigiousness. Much like the Pinkerton fiasco recently.

Weird how that works.

Oh, nah. I'm not damning them for the little guy using it. I'm damning them for using manipulative language to avoid culpability. For issuing a nonapology. Have the entire time.

Right? Can you -imagine- apologizing for something that didn't happen in order to pretend you apologized for something that did happen? It's almost like that's manipulative and shady and being called out as such.

That is certainly an interpretation of events that you have come to, there.

Again, we're arguing the meanings of words. That's always my favorite part of these threads.

You've got the dictionary definition of "litigious" down, for sure. But for most folks, the word means "being sued". WotC has not sued anyone over this issue. That's why you're getting pushback on that claim.

They certainly have a team of folks looking for DMCA or IP violations, and yes I suppose that technically is being litigious. But so do most companies that control IP and no more or less aggressively . . . IME at least.

We obviously don't see the situation the same, and that's okay. But wow, your replies are really aggressive. That's also probably why you're getting so much pushback on this.

 

[Faolyn]

Can WotC's employees lie when posting apologies for the company? Of course.

Are they in this instance? IMO, there is no evidence of that. Do they have a history of dishonest communications? Not to my perceptions or memory, no.

I would say they do. Or at least, they're very good at not explaining themselves, which can be seen as dishonest, like a lie by omission. Like here, where, as I said, they resorted to "mistakes were made" without explaining how, why, or most importantly, what they're going to do to prevent this from reoccurring. We're left with assumptions, but not facts.

Thus, this is a non-apology.

Are the apologies given very "corporate" and avoid directly taking responsibility for any wrong-doing? Sure, that's Corporation 101. It ceased bothering me decades ago.

Maybe it should start bothering you again. We shouldn't have to just accept "corporate-ese." We should be demanding more accountability. We may not be able to do it with the big companies, but we can at least try with the Hasbro-sized companies.

 

[Clint_L]

What I don't get is the vitriol against WotC for doing what I assume most of us agree they should do - let this use of their IP happen. And they did it right quick!

Of course they are going to hit pause when someone appropriates their stuff without asking, in violation of their stated policies. I kinda think anyone would. Seriously, wouldn't you - if you owned something and someone else just started using it for their own thing, wouldn't you want to check that out and make sure you are comfortable with it?

I feel like there are a lot of folks here who just assume the worst of WotC, to the extent where, here, WotC quickly gave their blessing to a creative modder to use their stuff for free, they are still being treated like corporate criminals. That modder was not entitled to do what they did, yet WotC has given it to them. Even apologized for initially stopping it. What is causing the rage?

 

[Cordwainer Fish]

Maybe it should start bothering you again. We shouldn't have to just accept "corporate-ese."

See also Quellcrist Falconer on why to make it personal.

 

[KYRON45]

'Whoops we hired the Pinkertons!' A mistake anyone could make.

I love when this gets brought up.
The Pinkertons of today are not the armed militia that was used to bust unions with brute force.

People use this reference to make it sound like they sent the Hells Angels to rough up some card collector in his mom’s basement.

The modern Pinkertons are a 3rd party security firm that uses average fat balding dudes to interact outside of customer service channels.

And now you’re going to call me an apologist for WotC. I don’t care about anything WotC does. It’s just a mischaracterization of what happened that people love to trot out to make WotC look like a Marvel villain organization.

They can’t get press releases right but everyone thinks they are a well organized group of mustache twirling bad guys.