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.

 

[Dire Bare]

The same could be said for the reputation of YouTubers

No it can't.

Maybe you're being funny (ha ha) . . . but the Pinkertons have a deserved reputation as thugs and union-busters and not just back in the wild west days, but today.

 

[Deset Gled]

If we're just going to throw around details about the histories of people and companies, here are some things to chew on:

The creator of the Baldur's Village mod (xunhe1145) was accused of racism during development because she did not include the Wyll character from BG3 in the mod. Apparently, part of her response to this accusation was to tell players they should play Assassin's Creed: Shadow instead. I can't tell if Wyll was eventually added or not (I don't own Stardew Valley, and I didn't find him in any screenshots). Details here (warning: NSFW language). Reblog by @johnny-depplyloveyou · 3 images

Nexus Mods, the host of Baldur's Villiage, garnered a bad reputation in some circles when they announced in 2021 that were removing the ability for users to delete their own content. From Wikipedia: "In June 2021, in a series of announcements in Nexus's developer forums followed by a lengthy public announcement on July 1, Nexus Mods stated that they would no longer be deleting mods at mod authors' request, but instead retaining archival copies for use in a new Collections feature." This policy is still in effect. Links: Nexus Mods - Wikipedia , An important notice and our future plans for collections

Nexus Mods has also gotten a reputation among other circles because they have removed mods for political content, and because of pro-inclusivity policies (i.e. not allowing mods designed to remove LGBTQ+ content from published games). At a glance, those policies seem like they could be similar to ENWorld's.

Stardew Valley's original distributor, Chucklefish, was accused of exploiting workers (including children) in 2019. From Wikipedia: "In 2019, Chucklefish were accused of exploiting around a dozen voluntary contributors during the development of Starbound, sometimes logging hundreds of hours with no compensation. Many of them were teenagers at the time and stated that they felt their inexperience was exploited by company director Finn Brice." Stardew Valley later broke ties with Chucklefish, and now does their own distribution. Links: Chucklefish - Wikipedia , Stardew Valley - Clarification on the relationship between Chucklefish and Stardew Valley

How much of this is true? This is just what I found from some light googling. Does it matter? Probably not a lot, but IMNSHO it's more relevant than arguing about the Pinkertons again.

 

[billd91]

If we're just going to throw around details about the histories of people and companies, here are some things to chew on:

You mean, if we're going to engage in deflection by "whataboutism"?

How much of this is true? This is just what I found from some light googling. Does it matter? Probably not a lot, but IMNSHO it's more relevant than arguing about the Pinkertons again.

Since this is a thread criticizing WotC's controversial moves, I don't see why any of these are relevant.

 

[Deset Gled]

You mean, if we're going to engage in deflection by "whataboutism"?


Since this is a thread criticizing WotC's controversial moves, I don't see why any of these are relevant.

I guess it's a question of what you think this thread is about.

I was originally under the impression this was a news thread about WotC interacting with a Stardew Valley mod. From that POV, details about the mod, it's creators, hosts, and the base game feel relevant, and rehashing an unrelated story about the Pinkertons from two years ago is whataboutism. OTOH, if you assume the purpose of this thread is to criticize WotC, then I suppose details about anyone other than WotC is whataboutism.

 

[Clint_L]

Well, yes, this incident is one such case.

Nobody is saying that they didn't use the process in a technically correct manner. But leading with the DMCA notice is media-pathic. To the public, it is kind of like the power company leading with turning off your electricity with the sheriff in tow, and then asking to speak with you about a minor billing irregularity.

If WotC wants to repair it's PR problems, they should be leading with a polite request to speak, lawyer to lawyer, before sending in C&Ds.

I don't think this is an apt analogy at all, unless you actually were stealing the power and they decided to give you a pass.

Edit: in your analogy, you always had a right to the electricity, and there was a billing discrepancy - presumably a problem from the power company. When they turned the power back on, you were simply getting back what you already were owed.

In this situation, the modder had no right to the IP, and that was very clearly published. No one disputes that. He was owed nothing, but WotC saw the value in his work and decided to change gift him their IP for this mod.

That's what I don't understand - your analogy reflects the way that a lot of folks are folks are framing this situation - as if the modder was being deprived of his rights in some way. But he wasn't! He was actually given something that he had no right to. So in your analogy - yeah, boo, bad power company. But in the case at hand...boo WotC because...they quickly agreed that this work was fantastic and decided to support it?

Okay, they put out a C&D for day - so what? If you steal someone's property and all you get is a C&D for a day as they review, and then they give it to you...what's the problem? That's a win! As far as bad PR...arguable, but that's certainly not the gist of most of these comments, which aren't "WotC is bad at PR" but "WotC did a terrible thing!" And I think the opposite is true - I think it's great that they quickly decided to give this modder the right to their IP for this.

Imagine if he'd done it with Disney characters...

 

[Umbran]

And have you stopped using products from all of them? No EA games? No Google search or YouTube? No Amazon shopping? No clothing from Target or Walmart? No products that say 'Made In China' at all?

If you've given up all of those things and only buy from made-in-America, organic, small, independent producers... good on you. I'm sure you are very proud of yourself. Give yourself a pat on the back.

Mod note:
Whataboutism, as in "What about these other things that seem similar..." is a logical fallacy, a version of tu quoque. As such, it is rhetorically weak. Broadly, one does not have to treat ALL cases the same to have a point.

It is also making it personal. Stop doing that, please.

 

[Faolyn]

The same could be said for the reputation of YouTubers

Two very different and unrelated things. For instance, nobody I have ever watched on YouTube has demanded that I do something or else they'll get the law involved.

 

[Older Beholder]

No it can't.

Maybe you're being funny (ha ha) . . . but the Pinkertons have a deserved reputation as thugs and union-busters and not just back in the wild west days, but today.

Two very different and unrelated things. For instance, nobody I have ever watched on YouTube has demanded that I do something or else they'll get the law involved.

From Logan Paul to Johnny Somali, there’s a reputation of YouTubers filming themselves doing crime for clout.

 

[Dire Bare]

From Logan Paul to Johnny Somali, there’s a reputation of YouTubers filming themselves doing crime for clout.

Are they involved in union busting or corporate thuggery?

And so it's not "YouTubers" but rather a handful of individual YouTubers? Okay.

 

[Faolyn]

From Logan Paul to Johnny Somali, there’s a reputation of YouTubers filming themselves doing crime for clout.

OK? So a few individuals do illegal things on film somehow is the same as someone threatening you with the law?

I think you may need to work on your analogies.