D&D (2024) D&D Player's Handbook Video Redactions & Takedowns

There's a lot of YouTube videos looking at the brand new Player's Handbook right now, and some of them include the YouTuber in question flipping through the new book on screen. A couple of those video creators have been asked by WotC to redact some of the content of their videos, with one finding that their video had been taken down entirely due to copyright claims from the company. It appears to be the folks who are flipping through the whole book on-screen who are running into this issue which, it seems, is based on piracy concerns.

Jorphdan posted on Twitter that "Despite fulfilling [WotC's] requests for the flip through video I was issues a copyright strike on my channel. Three strikes TERMINATES your channel. I don't think going over the 2024 PHB is worth losing my channel I've been working on since 2017. I'm pretty upset as none of this was said up front and when notified I did comply with their requirements. And I see other creators still have their videos up. Videos that are not unlike mine. Covering WotC is not worth losing my channel... Meanwhile please subscribe to my D&D free channel the Jocular Junction, where I'll most likely be making the majority of my TTRPG videos."

​

Mike Shea, aka Sly Flourish, also posted a walkthrough of the Player's Handbook. While he didn't receive a copyright takedown action, after an email from WotC he has blurred out all the page images. "Note, I blurred out pictures of the book after Hasbro sent me an email saying they worried people would take screenshots of the book and build their own. Yes, it's complete b******t, but we must all do our part to ensure four billion dollar companies maximize shareholder value."

Popular YouTuber DnD Shorts had a video entitled 100% Walkthrough of the New Player's Handbook in D&D. That video is no longer available. However, his full spoilers review is still online.

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

I think the point that people miss is this is SOP - or should be - for protecting product identity. To me, it's along the same line about how Xerox became the standard term used for copying things. Once you don't protect your product in America, it's done.

I think the issue here also is who they're targetting. You have people titling their videos basically 'I'm going to go over this book page by page' ABSOLUTELY just for clicks, which absolutely means for money.

We would be having a similar 'get the pitchforks' if Wizards embargoed videos until the books were released.

 

[Morrus]

I think the point that people miss is this is SOP - or should be - for protecting product identity. To me, it's along the same line about how Xerox became the standard term used for copying things. Once you don't protect your product in America, it's done.

This is not correct. What you are referring to is protection of trademarks; this issue is based on copyright. They're two very different things.

 

[Spectral Anomaly]

Guess I shouldn't be surprised that Parmandur thumbed a post that gets the fundamentals of IP law completely wrong...

Edit: And now he's removed it.

 

[mellored]

That is a very odd shifting of terminology and the goal posts in this conversation.

What would you call a "100% walkthough" of someone else's work with a link to your patron page?

 

[Remathilis]

That is a very odd shifting of terminology and the goal posts in this conversation.

If I read a brand new novel on camera beginning to end and then monetize ads for my reading of it, I'm giving you all the information in the book but not in a print form and still making money off it. Still is copyright infringement.

That said, what Shorts did and what other YouTubers like Sly did are different and I think WotC overreacted as it is want to do. I hope they will be able to remove the strikes from the legitimate reading and reviews vs the "put the whole book on camera" videos.

 

[Nikosandros]

Litterally putting a camera on it and scanning every page, and collecting ad / patron money.

Just because it was in .mp4 scan instead of a .pdf scan doesn't change the fact they where selling copies.


That's different that making your own thoughts.

@SlyFlourish has done no such thing. Only one video, as far as we know, was as described and no one has said that it shouldn't have been take down. The other affected videos contained some flip-through, which are extremely common when reviewing RPGs.

 

[mellored]

@SlyFlourish has done no such thing.

And he blurred the images of WotC's book.

He didn't scramble his own voice or take down the video, or change his opinion.

Which sounds like a perfect compromise to me.

 

[Mistwell]

I don't know any industries where the company freely gives away samples of their product hoping to generate enthusiasm, but then turns around the next day and slaps them with legal repercussions for doing what they were asked to do in the first place.

Protecting your copyrights is understandable, but holy crap learn how to pick your battles

The people with the copies were not asked to then reproduce copies of the books, page by page, and distribute it freely to everyone.

99% of the videos on this topic were not taken down. Only the guys who decided to abuse it by showing almost every page (or in one case every single page) got the take down notice.

 

[Nikosandros]

And he blurred the images of WotC's book.

He didn't scramble his own voice or take down the video, or change his opinion.

Which sounds like a perfect compromise to me.

Have you read any of his posts here? That wasn't a compromise. It was WotC forcing him to do this for no particular good reason.

 

[Remathilis]

@SlyFlourish has done no such thing. Only one video, as far as we know, was as described and no one has said that it shouldn't have been take down. The other affected videos contained some flip-through, which are extremely common when reviewing RPGs.

I think Sly and a few others got swept up because it looked like a read though. I hope WotC has the ability to manually remove the ones that didn't violate fair use.