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]

They won't break your leg if they work for wizards. If you really think they do, you have different problems.
Which is that you probably should think about where you get your information from.
Probably from outrage creator youtubers...

No, I don't watch RPG-creator youtubers. I read articles, from multiple sources.

But you pretty much addressed the issue in your first sentence there: "they won't break your leg if they work for wizards." That if is carrying all the weight here. Sure, WotC isn't going to hire them to break legs--WotC has made dumb, greedy mistakes but they're not actively evil--but that's their reputation. WotC made mistake of hiring an organization with the reputation of breaking legs. The fact that WotC didn't tell them to go break legs in this particular case (or for all we know, actively told them not to break legs) doesn't give WotC any points.

They can't hire an organization (especially when they had many other options) with that sort of reputation and not expect people to get upset with that choice.

 

[Faolyn]

I'm not sure about this, I feel it takes careful curation to not be constantly bombarded by misogynistic grifters.
At least it feels that way in movie and video game spaces. Just the other day I got recommended a ProJared video.

How weird. Maybe because I don't watch RPG videos in general, but I rarely come across these things at all. Literally the most questionable video that was ever suggested was one on how to make alcohol out of Elmer's glue.

 

[BrokenTwin]

As someone who has carefully curated a very intelligent, wholesome and artistic experience on YouTube... the default experience of the site IS a cesspit, and has a well deserved reputation for being so. Having said that, tarring all YouTube content creators as being the same as the worst examples is deeply unfair.

And as someone whose literal existence is legally punishable by death in multiple countries, legality and morality are definitely NOT synonymous.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

No, I don't watch RPG-creator youtubers. I read articles, from multiple sources.

But you pretty much addressed the issue in your first sentence there: "they won't break your leg if they work for wizards." That if is carrying all the weight here. Sure, WotC isn't going to hire them to break legs--WotC has made dumb, greedy mistakes but they're not actively evil--but that's their reputation. WotC made mistake of hiring an organization with the reputation of breaking legs. The fact that WotC didn't tell them to go break legs in this particular case (or for all we know, actively told them not to break legs) doesn't give WotC any points.

Do you have a quotation where there is actually a case laid out where they actually break legs in the last 50 years or so?

They can't hire an organization (especially when they had many other options) with that sort of reputation and not expect people to get upset with that choice.

Yeah. Until you get me an actual report of them breaking legs I withhold my answer to this part.

 

[Faolyn]

Do you have a quotation where there is actually a case laid out where they actually break legs in the last 50 years or so?

Yeah. Until you get me an actual report of them breaking legs I withhold my answer to this part.

Sigh.

Can I point to you them spying on people trying to form unions? Which they did within the last few years.

Because "leg-breaker" is a figure of speech. They do dodgy, semi-illegal things. They have a bad reputation because of that.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Sigh.

Can I point to you them spying on people trying to form unions? Which they did within the last few years.

Yeah. Because that is their job description. You hire them to get information.
Is it cool? No. Not at all.

By that standard any law firm should not be hired, because they also do things for corporations we don't like.

Because "leg-breaker" is a figure of speech. They do dodgy, semi-illegal things. They have a bad reputation because of that.

So now it is not actual leg breaking anymore...

Please give me actual cases.

Right now you are just spreading rumors.

 

[Dire Bare]

Right now you are just spreading rumors.

Your ignorance does not equate to others "spreading rumors".

I feel @Faolyn's description of the event in question, WotC sending Pinkertons to harass a MtG YouTuber, is one with charged language . . . but none-the-less is fairly accurate to what happened.

However, despite your own ignorance on the matter, the Pinkertons have a long history of dodgy, semi-legal harassment of citizens on behalf of corporations, including, but not limited to, union-busting. They did it back in the wild west days, and they continue to earn that reputation today. Don't believe us? Okay, but do your own research, I'm not doing it for you.

Are they the only security firm to engage in such behaviors? Nope. But they have that earned reputation, and WotC stumbled even just in hiring that firm . . . considering all of the other blunders they were stumbling into at the time.

WotC hiring a security firm to harass a YouTuber was an egregiously poor decision, regardless of the specific firm hired. The fact it was the Pinkertons was just bad PR on top of bad mojo.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Your ignorance does not equate to others "spreading rumors".

Is it too difficult to actually give me actual information? If yes, then it rumors.
If not. Please show me. I am nit living in the US and might have not the context.

I feel @Faolyn's description of the event in question, WotC sending Pinkertons to harass a MtG YouTuber, is one with charged language . . . but none-the-less is fairly accurate to what happened.

WotC said they tried to contact the youtuber in question before sending pinkertons.

However, despite your own ignorance on the matter, the Pinkertons have a long history of dodgy, semi-legal harassment of citizens on behalf of corporations, including, but not limited to, union-busting. They did it back in the wild west days, and they continue to earn that reputation today. Don't believe us? Okay, but do your own research, I'm not doing it for you.

As said above. I am not living in the US. I tried wikipedia and the info there is spare.
I think using the wild west as recent history is a bit dodgy, but hey.

Are they the only security firm to engage in such behaviors? Nope. But they have that earned reputation, and WotC stumbled even just in hiring that firm . . . considering all of the other blunders they were stumbling into at the time.

Yeah. Ok. I always hear the same stories. I just asked for relatable information.

WotC hiring a security firm to harass a YouTuber was an egregiously poor decision, regardless of the specific firm hired. The fact it was the Pinkertons was just bad PR on top of bad mojo.

My research found that WotC tried to make contact in a friendly way before.

And as far as I am concerned, there was staged outrage against WotC at the time on youtube.

Partly justified? Probably. But as soon as the outrage machine is going on there is nearly no wqy to tell truth from rumors.

In that time some youtuber actually did spread false or half true rumors.
So asking for relatable facts should be ok.

But it seems that the burden of proof is reversed... so whatever.

And @Faolyn already admitted that breaking legs was no real fact. Which was what I originally asked for. Because my research did not get a match for that.

And that is what I meant with "spreading rumors". So if I took @Faolyn's saying as actual truth, I would have believed Pinkerton's are actually brwaking people's legs.

And @Faolyn said that people threten innoce t people with law. Which I don't think it is that terrible if you did not break any.
What you are forgetting is that bot everyone in this forum is a US citizen and thus used to this kind of law.
I live in Germany where threatening people with law is way less intimidating...

 

[billd91]

I think using the wild west as recent history is a bit dodgy, but hey.

Most things in the US are, by European context, comparatively recent history. Fun fact, Wyatt Earp of OK Corral fame died less than 100 years ago in 1929... which happens to be just the year before my aunt was born.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Most things in the US are, by European context, comparatively recent history. Fun fact, Wyatt Earp of OK Corral fame died less than 100 years ago in 1929... which happens to be just the year before my aunt was born.

So for US it is ancient history comparatively...

So 100 years for new York is about 500year for the city I live in (about 25% of their existence).