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.

 

[MockingBird]

If WoTC had done their own vetting of who they wanted to review the 2024 PHB, they would have been accused of bias because the fans would wonder if a content creator was picked or not picked based on their relationship with WoTC. Relying on a third party to do the vetting was a good idea. But it probably would have been a good idea to pick a third party who knows the content creators.

WotC was already being accused of buying off YouTubers earlier in these very forums. It was damned if you do, damned if you don't situation anyway.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

WotC was already being accused of buying off YouTubers earlier in these very forums. It was damned if you do, damned if you don't situation anyway.

That's a pretty broad definition of "damned". One (or a couple of) poster(s) on ENWorld making a ridiculous claim about WotC is a far cry from a real PR disaster, which something like this event is far more likely to turn out to be. Though hopefully, they'll do enough to rectify the mistakes. Hey, if we're lucky, they'll learn from them. I won't hold my breath.

 

[timbannock]

That's a pretty broad definition of "damned". One (or a couple of) poster(s) on ENWorld making a ridiculous claim about WotC is a far cry from a real PR disaster, which something like this event is far more likely to turn out to be. Though hopefully, they'll do enough to rectify the mistakes. Hey, if we're lucky, they'll learn from them. I won't hold my breath.

How many more mistakes do they have to make before people stop thinking they haven't revealed who they are telling us they are?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

How many more mistakes do they have to make before people stop thinking they haven't revealed who they are telling us they are?

Fair, I suppose. But they're not really only one thing. They're a whole lotta things and something else on Tuesdays. Trends abound, of course.

 

[R_Chance]

I haven't read all 33 pages of this thread. I did read the first 3 or so and skipped through a lot of the rest to get the high lights.

I'm sorry, but if you get a review copy with some restrictions maybe you should not cross those boundaries. But apparently it was a win / win situation for those who did break the review rules. They got a copy they could use to do a review. They broke the rules letting them one up other reviewers who followed the rules. Then when grumpy old WotC forced redactions / took down a video they got support and sympathy from the internet crowd (well, a lot of it anyway) and got to be "cool" for ignoring WotC's "silly restrictions".

When WotC set the rules there were lines you were not supposed to cross. They seemed plain to me. They can't not enforce a (relatively) minor infraction and then enforce more serious ones. Once you've set that line you have to stick with it. Not enforcing the minor infractions would impact their ability to enforce their restrictions in more serious cases. All imho of course. I'm sure I'll take quite a bit of brown and smelly stuff for this opinion, but oh well.

I'm feeling kind of grumpy today anyway

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I haven't read all 33 pages of this thread. I did read the first 3 or so and skipped through a lot of the rest to get the high lights.

I'm sorry, but if you get a review copy with some restrictions maybe you should not cross those boundaries.

I think you may have skimmed past some important posts.

The rules were stated after the videos went up, per @SlyFlourish.

 

[TiQuinn]

I'm sorry, but if you get a review copy with some restrictions maybe you should not cross those boundaries. But apparently it was a win / win situation for those who did break the review rules. They got a copy they could use to do a review. They broke the rules letting them one up other reviewers who followed the rules. Then when grumpy old WotC forced redactions / took down a video they got support and sympathy from the internet crowd (well, a lot of it anyway) and got to be "cool" for ignoring WotC's "silly restrictions".

Yeahhhhh. You really should read all 33 pages.

 

[Quickleaf]

How many more mistakes do they have to make before people stop thinking they haven't revealed who they are telling us they are?

Hey Tim! Good to see you back on here and with new publishing endeavors on the horizon. I enjoyed your hexcrawl material I picked up from Drivethru years ago!

 

[R_Chance]

I think you may have skimmed past some important posts.

The rules were stated after the videos went up, per @SlyFlourish.

If so, I apologize. Still, I don't see them spreading review copies around with no restrictions with subsequent actions. That would be a screw up on their part. In any event I'm not going to take down my post. It should serve as a warning to read the entire thread before you post if nothing else

 

[Iosue]

As I understand it (and SlyFlourish, please correct me if I'm wrong), generally there are no restrictions on review copies, by anyone. WotC initially sending the copies without restrictions is not particularly unusual. Because usually, reviewers do reviews, with a judicious amount of the product shown, not show the whole product page by page. DnD Shorts, apparently, either doesn't understand how to do reviews, or was acting in bad faith.

These review copies are distinct from the preview PDFs that were sent to select YouTubers in advance of the PHB being publicly available. These watermarked PDFs were provided under NDAs that specified what information the YouTuber could talk about. DnD Shorts was not sent one of these. There were no issues with the previews at all.