New York Times Begins The ‘Wordle’ IP Purge, Gets ‘Wordle Archive’ Taken Down
from the and-away-we-go dept
There are lots of reasons to have fallen in love with Wordle. The simple nature of the game. The ability to post spoiler-friendly brags for how you did on any given puzzle. The clean design. But here at Techdirt, we obviously became smitten with how Wordle’s creator, Josh Wardle, professed no interest in the ongoing monetization combined with zero interest in wrapping any IP around the game. In fact, the couple of times that other folks out there attempted to build Wordle clones or apps that had similar names and monetize them, Josh handled it all as kindly as possible.
But then Josh sold Wordle to the New York Times. When that happened, we wondered aloud:
It will be interesting to see if suddenly “IP issues” start becoming a bigger deal to the NY Times than they were to the original developer…
Which brings us to the present, a few weeks later, with the New York Times getting ‘Wordle Archive,’ a site to go and play past Wordle puzzles, to “voluntarily” shut down.
Wordle Archive was a service dedicated to the preservation of previous Wordle answers, allowing fans to dip into the backlog and play older puzzles, dating all the way back to the first one. However, the service has since been shut down at the request of the New York Times, as announced by an update on the application’s webpage.
The announcement thanks fans for their interest in the Wordle Archive and thanks them for their feedback throughout its life. It goes on to explain the situation and tell fans that its own original game, Word Grid, is still available for those that are interested in playing something similar. However, it is no longer possible to access that version of Wordle Archive, which many fans have used.
And so it has begun. An app created for others to have some simple and innocent fun by a man who very clearly had no interest in bullying others over intellectual property concerns is now in the hands of a media company that has decided to take the exact opposite route. And this will likely be the first move in a larger conflict, so long as the public backlash doesn’t get the Times to reverse course. There are plenty of other related apps and sites harkening back to Wordle. Will the Times be going after those as well? Probably, yes.
The shutdown does raise questions about similar games and services. In the time since Wordle saw its own explosive popularity, other games with similar mechanics have emerged. One clear example of this is Lewdle, which is essentially Wordle using strictly lewd words. Other similar games have also popped up, using similar restrictions or some other sort of twist on the formula.
And so the legacy of Wordle moves from one of pure enjoyment and care-free fun into the realm of intellectual property enforcement and corporatization.
Yay.
Filed Under: bully, wordle
Companies: new york times
Comments on “New York Times Begins The ‘Wordle’ IP Purge, Gets ‘Wordle Archive’ Taken Down”
Current puzzles or none at all
Because no-one would ever play older puzzles and decide that they’d like to play the current ones and/or suggest it to others…
Backhanding fans right out of the gate, I see they’re wasting no time in burning any goodwill attached to the game to the ground in the name of short-term profit and control.
Re:
The vast majority of Wordle players will never hear about this.
Re: Re:
Yeah, this is just another example of a situation that, while very annoying and another example of how trademark/copyright ideas are used to the detriment of everyone, the vast majority of people will never know, let alone care, about it.
It’s frustrating to those of us who do, but unless you were an active user of the archive or read sites like this one, it will never be on your radar.
Re: Re:
All too true. Whenever I bring up copyright & I.P. problems/overreach people’s eye’s glaze over & they stop listening.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: I don't blame them!
You will get people like me who think, why not. They have a product people want to interact with. If someone is copying them, which is what an archive does, then protect their property.
I bet if you were in the same shoes, you’d do the same.
It’s not being monetized yet, but when it is, I bet they go down hard on these copy cat sites.
Re: Re:
“They have a product people want to interact with.”
…and nothing about the archive changes that.
“I bet if you were in the same shoes, you’d do the same.”
I wouldn’t, for largely the same reasons the guy who made the game didn’t go and register all the trademarks, etc.
A quick hint for you if you’re not aware – just because you think something, it doesn’t mean other people don’t have valid ideas that contradict your view.
“It’s not being monetized yet, but when it is, I bet they go down hard on these copy cat sites.”
Yes, and people will criticise them for the same reasons they do now. If their business plan with this acquisition is dependant on locking up old content and reselling it for a premium and they have no other ideas, they will deserve every word of the criticism, too.
Re: Re: Re:
“I wouldn’t, for largely the same reasons the guy who made the game didn’t go and register all the trademarks, etc.”
It’s not the original guy going after the archive site. If you paid $3 million for something, I’m sure you’d want to protect it.
“A quick hint for you if you’re not aware – just because you think something, it doesn’t mean other people don’t have valid ideas that contradict your view.”
I think you’ve taken my comment a bit personally. All I did was contradict your view, perhaps you need to read your own advice here.
Re: Re: Re:2
How, and from what, does the Times going after a Wordle archive “protect” Wordle?
Re: Re: Re:2
“If you paid $3 million for something, I’m sure you’d want to protect it.”
I would also know that this doesn’t do that.
” All I did was contradict your view, perhaps you need to read your own advice here.”
No, you claimed that I would think what you think, implying there’s no valid alternative opinions. I’m sorry if my stating that you were completely wrong in that regard and you’d be better off with a wider discussion offended you so.
Re: Re: Uh, no!
Just no. Actually I go further than most copy-left people by using the explicit (in more ways than one) I Don’t Give A Fuck license. A legal premise that dates back to the 80s and magazine code based mashups.
I don’t understand the logistics of “selling” something with no restrict on it in the first place. Nor what was promised.
But it’s historically proven when big media acquires free and popular it becomes closed and costly.
Which is worse even from big software which only locks down acquisitions about half the time.
Re: Re: Re:
The logic, which is used by most self publishers, is if you want more support me so that I can devote time to creating more. That is they are selling their abilities, and not their back catalogue.
Re: Re: Re:
“I don’t understand the logistics of “selling” something with no restrict on it in the first place.”
It’s very easy. You crate something of additional value to complement that and you sell the benefits to people who are already using the free product. Removing an archive of something that’s always been free and trying to resell it to people who already consumed the content is the least logical way of doing that.
Re: Re: Re:2
I guess. Like I said I have no idea what the deal was.
This is a program that pops up in the news for some reason or other every few months.
Being it came from techdirt I actually read this one.
My reply was to the person standing up for NYT’ actions.
Actually, I’m peripherally involved with a group who’s foundation cause is to buy and open source proprietary software.
So no, not only would I not do “the exact same thing”; I’d do the exact opposite.
Re: Re: Re:3
“This is a program that pops up in the news for some reason or other every few months.”
No, it’s not. It’s a program that got some attention due it being a viral hit shortly after it launched just under 6 months ago, it got more attention when it got bought by the NYT last month, and now it’s getting some more attention when the NYT start doing things that weren’t in question before they bought it.
I’m all for criticism of what’s happening now and examination of how it acts as an example relating to things like trademark, copyrights, etc., but let’s not pretend that facts are anything other than what they are just to make your point.
Re: Re: Re:4
Well, seeing it 3 or 4 times over six months does count as every few months but point taken.
Once Again, I was only deriding the other poster’s notion that “you’d do” the same.
It’s neither the product nor the company. Or even the action. It was the closed-minded knee jerk reaction of one that everyone is a predatory multinational at heart.
Wordle is all about 4-letter words now.
Re:
Actually, ‘Trademark’ is a nine letter word.
It won't take long
Word’ll get around.
Re:
It’ll travel around the worldle.
Re: Re: Worldle
I hope they don’t go after worldle; I’ve been enjoying that one.
NYT will have to tread carefully here: while Wordle hit the magic Viral combination, it’s not the first implementation of this puzzle game — which means as long as other sites aren’t re-using code or trade marks, they have no legitimate recourse to request a takedown. And any illegitimate requests will just give publicity to other word grid games while providing a reason for their users to jump ship.