I was on vacation when the story broke and decided not to say anything about it then. Partly because I wanted to see how it developed. Partly because I didn't want to ruin my vacation mood. But it's been long enough.
Two weeks back, the New York Times, owner of Wordle, issued several copyright takedown notices to developers who've come out with Wordle-like games. One affects over 1900 variant games, many of which have twists that make them inarguably different experiences.
The New York Times has filed a series of copyright takedown requests against Wordle clones and variations in which it asserts not just ownership over the Wordle name but over the broad concepts and mechanics of the word game, which includes its “5x6 grid” and “green tiles to indicate correct guesses…”
Parker Higgins, a copyright expert, software developer, and crossword constructor, reviewed the takedown request and said “the Times is operating against the spirit of both the word puzzle community and the open source software world that fostered Wordle’s creation.”
“In both puzzles and tech, people understand that you build on established conventions both to learn the craft and to discover new fun things incrementally. Wordle itself is a beneficiary of that dynamic. It builds on gameplay mechanics from the existing game Jotto, it incorporates community innovations like the emoji results-sharing system, and its reputation was absolutely bolstered by the popularity of variant versions,” he added. “To turn around and smother the ecosystem now is just kicking down the ladder. And it’s especially shameful given that the Times has enjoyed success recently with Connections, another great game with clear ties to prior art.”
Matt Gritzmacher adds:
As at every point that the Times has pointed to the prestige of its crossword to credentialize other games while actively diverting resources and features from that same crossword, we are once again presented with the disconnect between New York Times Games operating as a capitalistic business venture and as a steward of puzzles as an art form. The Times has consistently chosen the former in recent years, all while telling us how wonderful they are at the latter. It’s difficult to reconcile.
It’s extremely difficult to reconcile, and I feel like I’m a practiced reconciler. I can enjoy Superman stories despite knowing how their publisher used and discarded Superman’s creators (until it was shamed into giving them modest sums after their retirement). I can enjoy a scene with Joss Whedon directing Gwyneth Paltrow, even though I’ve got issues with both of them as people. (For the record, I like Robert Downey, Jr. fine.)
But I have my limits. I’m not going to watch Bill Cosby or Woody Allen do stand-up. I’m not going to watch Apprentice reruns that made Donald Trump look like a harmless eccentric.
Has Wordle crossed into that category for me? I haven’t yet decided. It and other NYT Games are part of my morning routine, though, so for peace of mind, I better figure it out.
The NYT hasn’t just sold itself as a steward of games, it’s sold itself as a leader. It’s well aware that outlets have followed its example when making crosswords. Until recently, one could argue that was a side benefit of its whole Games section. “Hey hey, puzzle community! Stand back and let the experts show you how it’s done!”
But you can’t be a leader if you attack people for following your lead.
In days to come, I’ll unpack this issue further, looking at it through both wide (sociological) and narrow (personal) lenses. First up: the trouble with “streaks.”
NUMBER ONE PUZZLE OF THE YEAR: Trying to figure out the NY TIMES lawsuit against
puzzle makers., Maybe some early poet should have copyrighted the idea of writing
poems,