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.

 

[Corinnguard]

Exactly.

He would be a person using a physical book and not be striked.

By signing the NDA, he agreed to be a full partner attached to the release of the 2024 books. And thus the onus of being a cooperative responsible partner is on him.

Would those who didn't sign the NDA and got the book for their reviews be considered as full partners?

 

[Minigiant]

Would those who didn't sign the NDA and got the book for their reviews be considered as full partners?

Nope.

Unless they signed something similar, they should not be treated similar.

 

[Morrus]

So there's a couple of different issues at play here.

Being a reviewer is a different job than previewing/promoting a book.

Supplying a copy of a book for review purposes is normal practice (also see movies, etc.) A publisher can't attach conditions to that review--can't say which pages can be shown, dictate any opinion, etc. However, the reviewer is bound by normal fair use practices relating to the amount they share. There's no strict rule on this, but you can't share a lot (though you can talk about what you want). An embargo date is the one thing that you do see from time to time, and while it's not enforceable, it's basically a strongly worded request. If you break an embargo, the only consequence is that you probably won't get any review copies in future.

That's reviews. A reviewer is in no way a 'partner'. Movie critics aren't partners of the studios, even if they attend press screenings. Publishers supplying review copies is just part of their job, reviewers reviewing things is just part of their job, everybody's just doing their job, and it's generally well understood.

If you're sending a book to somebody for purely promotional purposes, and especially if you're attaching NDAs (excepting embargoes), restricting what can be shown or talked about, etc., that's not a reviewer relationship. That is a promotional partnership. In this case, 'fair use' isn't the issue--it's whatever has been agreed between the two parties. This appears to be what we're discussing here, and it seems that (a) the relationship wasn't clear and (b) initial guidelines on what was appropriate were also absent or not clear. However, the existence of those guidelines does put this situation in the promotional partner category, not the review category.

All perfectly valid, but we are talking about two different things.

Incidentally, we will have a review up this week as one of our reviewers was able to secure a copy of the book at Gen Con.

 

[Dire Bare]

So there's a couple of different issues at play here.

Being a reviewer is a different job than previewing/promoting a book.

Supplying a copy of a book for review purposes is normal practice (also see movies, etc.) A publisher can't attach conditions to that review--can't say which pages can be shown, dictate any opinion, etc. However, the reviewer is bound by normal fair use practices relating to the amount they share. There's no strict rule on this, but you can't share a lot (though you can talk about what you want). An embargo date is the one thing that you do see from time to time, and while it's not enforceable, it's basically a strongly worded request. If you break an embargo, the only consequence is that you probably won't get any review copies in future.

That's reviews. A reviewer is in no way a 'partner'. Movie critics aren't partners of the studios, even if they attend press screenings. Publishers supplying review copies is just part of their job, reviewers reviewing things is just part of their job, everybody's just doing their job, and it's generally well understood.

If you're sending a book to somebody for purely promotional purposes, and especially if you're attaching NDAs (excepting embargoes), restricting what can be shown or talked about, etc., that's not a reviewer relationship. That is a promotional partnership. In this case, 'fair use' isn't the issue--it's whatever has been agreed between the two parties. This appears to be what we're discussing here, and it seems that (a) the relationship wasn't clear and (b) initial guidelines on what was appropriate were also absent or not clear. However, the existence of those guidelines does put this situation in the promotional partner category, not the review category.

All perfectly valid, but we are talking about two different things.

Incidentally, we will have a review up this week as one of our reviewers was able to secure a copy of the book at Gen Con.

Thanks for explaining things from the POV of a publisher. Some good points.

I do think from the POV of a fan, the difference between a review and a promotional relationship is semantic, although very real from the reviewer's perspective. And a lot of YouTube content creators are simply fans who started making videos, and not savvy to the difference. This experience has probably educated many of them!!

I sure hope WotC has felt some of the burn from this and learned their lesson . . . but this sort of corporate, bureaucratic incompetence seems endemic to large organizations like Hasbro/WotC.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I've been in business with WotC for 30 years, and I'm not a "fan". I used to be when they were a good business partner, but they are not any longer.

OTOH, I am a HUGE fan of D&D - I live and breathe it. And it's been a long, long time since I would have let my view of the company affect my view of the game. In fact, I never would have - or I'd have been pretty upset with TSR, too.

That said, I wish that they'd shape up and get better at being a good business partner. Perhaps if they hired some smart people who are good at their jobs and then - gasp - kept them around!

 

[Mistwell]

Possible copyright strike on YouTube (have three of those and you're out!)? This behavior might influence other (potential) partners from ever working with him in the future. And whether or not he views himself a WOTC partner or not, he effectively is by accepting the early access to PHB and accepting/signing the NDA he got with that. Many viewers will also look at it that way... WotC gave him a special position, he could just not have accepted that if he's that much anti-WotC. And he might not be earning any money from the videos directly, but it will have attracted new viewers that might stay for videos he will earn money on. And without this leak of a full D&D PHB pdf made from DnDShorts screenshots I would never even have heard on the DnD Shorts channel...

Don't be naive DnD Shorts is reaping a benefit from this, it's all hype/marketing. He might not have intended it that way, he might not see it that way, but it's the reality of the matter.

I didn't suggest Dnd Shorts sees no benefit from this. I said I don't think his reputation was harmed by this. And he avoided a strike by reacting very quickly to their take down request, immediately putting the video on private.

 

[Mistwell]

Like I mentioned in either this thread or another one, you can be a fan of a company's product while not being a fan of the company itself.

That's nice, but there is a reason I asked "Are you suggestion he is a fan and partner of WOTC?"

So, my answer is yes and no. I am suggesting that he is a fan of D&D and a partner to those who spent the man-hours designing D&D for us over the last 50 years. He's not fan or partner for those at the top of the company. Namely WoTC and Hasbro.

You're answering yes to a question I didn't ask or imply with my question, and no to the question I did ask.

He's not a fan or partner of WOTC. I was responding to a suggestion he was a fan and partner of WOTC. He's not. We agree on that. His reputation, from what I can tell, has not decreased over this incident.

 

[Minigiant]

I sure hope WotC has felt some of the burn from this and learned their lesson . . . but this sort of corporate, bureaucratic incompetence seems endemic to large organizations like Hasbro/WotC

Lack of communication and miscommunication are big problems in the big corporate world. There are too many people involved in everything and it's too easy for them to be disconnected without slowing down processes.

I waited 6 hours today for a yes or no answer today. And that was quick.

That said, I wish that they'd shape up and get better at being a good business partner. Perhaps if they hired some smart people who are good at their jobs and then - gasp - kept them around!

Not gonna happen. WOTC is well beyond the point where a single point can have an ear in every major step on the customer side AND have time impart their gaming knowledge into the process of content creation.

 

[Corinnguard]

So there's a couple of different issues at play here.

Being a reviewer is a different job than previewing/promoting a book.

Supplying a copy of a book for review purposes is normal practice (also see movies, etc.) A publisher can't attach conditions to that review--can't say which pages can be shown, dictate any opinion, etc. However, the reviewer is bound by normal fair use practices relating to the amount they share. There's no strict rule on this, but you can't share a lot (though you can talk about what you want). An embargo date is the one thing that you do see from time to time, and while it's not enforceable, it's basically a strongly worded request. If you break an embargo, the only consequence is that you probably won't get any review copies in future.

That's reviews. A reviewer is in no way a 'partner'. Movie critics aren't partners of the studios, even if they attend press screenings. Publishers supplying review copies is just part of their job, reviewers reviewing things is just part of their job, everybody's just doing their job, and it's generally well understood.

If you're sending a book to somebody for purely promotional purposes, and especially if you're attaching NDAs (excepting embargoes), restricting what can be shown or talked about, etc., that's not a reviewer relationship. That is a promotional partnership. In this case, 'fair use' isn't the issue--it's whatever has been agreed between the two parties. This appears to be what we're discussing here, and it seems that (a) the relationship wasn't clear and (b) initial guidelines on what was appropriate were also absent or not clear. However, the existence of those guidelines does put this situation in the promotional partner category, not the review category.

All perfectly valid, but we are talking about two different things.

Incidentally, we will have a review up this week as one of our reviewers was able to secure a copy of the book at Gen Con.

Why would WoTC pick some content creators to be in a promotional partnership with them, and have others serve as reviewers?

 

[Morrus]

Why would WoTC pick some content creators to be in a promotional partnership with them, and have others serve as reviewers?

I don't know what arrangements WotC made with them. From the sounds of it, they were all the former.

Note that WotC doesn't 'pick' people to 'serve as' reviewers; reviewers are not employed by or contracted by them. If they are, then they're promotional partners, not reviewers.