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.

 

[Older Beholder]

Are they involved in union busting or corporate thuggery?

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

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.

This was just one example of the type of things YouTubers get a bad rep for, and I mention it as to why I find it hard to have sympathy for anyone that films themselves doing potential crimes and puts it online for clout/profit.

Explaining the other reasons why I think YouTubers have a bad reputation would be a bit too hard without getting into politics as well as adult subject matter both of which are outside the scope of the site guidelines, so I’m happy to drop this line as it’s getting to be a bit of tangent to the original topic and I apologise for bringing it up.

I respect that people are free to patronise or not patronise whichever businesses they wish for whatever reasons they want.

 

[Dire Bare]

This was just one example of the type of things YouTubers get a bad rep for, and I mention it as to why I find it hard to have sympathy for anyone that films themselves doing potential crimes and puts it online for clout/profit.

Explaining the other reasons why I think YouTubers have a bad reputation would be a bit too hard without getting into politics as well as adult subject matter both of which are outside the scope of the site guidelines, so I’m happy to drop this line as it’s getting to be a bit of tangent to the original topic and I apologise for bringing it up.

I respect that people are free to patronise or not patronise whichever businesses they wish for whatever reasons they want.

So, all YouTubers then. Oookay.

 

[Faolyn]

This was just one example of the type of things YouTubers get a bad rep for, and I mention it as to why I find it hard to have sympathy for anyone that films themselves doing potential crimes and puts it online for clout/profit.

Explaining the other reasons why I think YouTubers have a bad reputation would be a bit too hard without getting into politics as well as adult subject matter both of which are outside the scope of the site guidelines, so I’m happy to drop this line as it’s getting to be a bit of tangent to the original topic and I apologise for bringing it up.

I respect that people are free to patronise or not patronise whichever businesses they wish for whatever reasons they want.

Except there's a huge difference between "some smallish percentage of people use youtube to film themselves doing stupid things" and "this is an entire security company, which means it needs to be tough and scary, and who relies on their reputation for ruthlessness in order to draw in customers, and who continues to hire themselves out to do dodgy, anti-union activities."

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Are they involved in union busting or corporate thuggery?

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

One youtuber filmed himself shooting a fireworks rocker into a children sleeping room this new year. So no. Reputation of youtubers is very low in my view.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Except there's a huge difference between "some smallish percentage of people use youtube to film themselves doing stupid things" and "this is an entire security company, which means it needs to be tough and scary, and who relies on their reputation for ruthlessness in order to draw in customers, and who continues to hire themselves out to do dodgy, anti-union activities."

Stupid and criminal. And probably just don't do illegal things and you are not being threatened with the law?

 

[Incenjucar]

Stupid and criminal. And probably just don't do illegal things and you are not being threatened with the law?

The Pinkertons are not the law, they're mercenaries.

 

[Faolyn]

The Pinkertons are not the law, they're mercenaries.

IIRC, they threatened to bring the police into it.

 

[Faolyn]

One youtuber filmed himself shooting a fireworks rocker into a children sleeping room this new year. So no. Reputation of youtubers is very low in my view.

So, all the people I watch who do art tutorials, let's plays, or talk about nature and evolutionary biology... they all suck too?

Stupid and criminal. And probably just don't do illegal things and you are not being threatened with the law?

There was nothing criminal in the case we've been talking about.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

So, all the people I watch who do art tutorials, let's plays, or talk about nature and evolutionary biology... they all suck too?

No. Still being a youtuber is not something I give anything about.

People doing things for clicks... Sometimes stupid and criminal ones.

Just look at many d&d channels. So many just do ragebaits.
And some people do outright dangerous or illegal things.
Like flyong to Berlin and shooting a firework rocket into a children bedroom.

There was nothing criminal in the case we've been talking about.

Maybe. Maybe not. Does say more about the law system than anything. One should not have to fear law if one did nothing illegal.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The Pinkertons are not the law, they're mercenaries.

Maybe. But @Faolyn said they don't want to be threatened by law. If the said thw don't want ro be threatened by mercanaries my answer had been different.