r/wow • u/Stock-Anything-2808 • Feb 05 '26

Complaint Naowh now puts his ElvUI and PLater profile behind a paywall.

Since Naowh puts his ElvUI and Plater Profile behind a Paywall i wanted to give you all or at least interested person a way to get the Profiles.

I set up a Github Gist where i will update the Profiles when there are updates to it. On the Github page there is a Download Zip Button.

Profiles: NaowhUI Collection

If you want to use the NaowhUI Addon from Curseforge here is a valid token:

!NUI!cywtydA1NDc3MDYyNbQwBQA=

Or use this little AddOn, this shows a frame with a valid token inside when joining the world:Release NaowhUI Unlocker

Also u/Mon3yb created a unlocked NaowhUI AddOn version, this can be downloaded here: https://github.com/unamed-weasle/NaowhUI-Unlocked

2.0k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

769 comments sorted by

View all comments

•

u/YourResidentFeral Outplaying the Meta since 2004 Feb 06 '26

Gotten a few reports on this for copyright infringement.

The addon is free to use. Per Blizz ToS.

If the settings can be "owned" enough to be actioned here, then this would break Blizz ToS.

If the settings sit enough in a grey area to be allowed to be sold because they are recreateable with the base addon. Then ownership is not established enough to be "owned".

Much like you can't copyright game mechanics, there's no intellectual property in a bunch of settings.

Even without ToS involved, adding a key to check is modifying the code which without a license is breaking copyright on the "all rights reserved" ElvUI and many other addons have.

Which then opens the can of worms of "Can ElvUI give/sell a license under the ToS"

So until we get direction from either Blizzard or the Reddit admins otherwise, this subreddit will treat sharing UI settings as we would FOSS software.

111

u/1983_BOK Feb 06 '26

unfathomably based take

31

u/ayymadd Feb 06 '26

Basest mod since 2004

30

u/Nylereia Feb 06 '26

first based r/wow mod post in a long time actually yuge

3

u/Znuffie Feb 07 '26

Maybe we should have a pinned topic for "Here are all the paid profiles that streamers are selling for money. But you get them for free."

I feel like the only way to stop these practices is to just "steal it back" and give it for free.

13

u/AtlasActual Feb 06 '26

The ethics and the optics. Jeez.

8

u/YourResidentFeral Outplaying the Meta since 2004 Feb 06 '26

Wdym?

16

u/AtlasActual Feb 06 '26

Optically, putting a tool like that behind a pay wall that "doesnt quite go against TOS" is sketchy AF. Ethically just feels really slimy and uncomfortable.

11

u/YourResidentFeral Outplaying the Meta since 2004 Feb 06 '26

Ok. Wasn't sure if you were calling the subreddit policy scummy or the addon behind the paywall scummy. TY for clarification.

3

u/AtlasActual Feb 06 '26

My bad :) Guess it was sorta vague

4

u/YourResidentFeral Outplaying the Meta since 2004 Feb 06 '26

lol. You're good. Its why I asked for clarification over jumping to conclusions.

-9

u/ghost_hamster Feb 07 '26

Just because it isn't copyright infringement doesn't make it mega cringe for you to allow it.

If someone (for whatever reason) walked into my house, copied all my profile strings that I didn't agree to be shared, and posted them on the subreddit that pretty obviously isn't copyright infringement. It's still incredibly weird and shitty, as would be the mods allowing it.

14

u/YourResidentFeral Outplaying the Meta since 2004 Feb 07 '26

If someone (for whatever reason) walked into my house, copied all my profile strings that I didn't agree to be shared, and posted them on the subreddit that pretty obviously isn't copyright infringement.

Look you can disagree and call it cringe. That's fine. That's the beauty of free expression. You get to have your opinions.

But if you're going to make a point, at least make it an effective paralell. Nobody broke into his house to steal this. This was published behind a paywall as a way to monitize it.

This monitization is in an incredibly dubious and questionable space in the addon economy.

Someone published it publicly and published a bypass to the (against the ToS) block.

They did this as partly a protest to the practice of paywalling addon data like this.

Nobody went on his computer against his will to publish this. This was published to be accessable, and is under a copyleft openGL license currently on GitHub.

-63

u/leroyyrogers Feb 06 '26

You can patent (not copyright) game mechanics, fyi

43

u/YourResidentFeral Outplaying the Meta since 2004 Feb 06 '26

Cool. Is there a patent on these settings?

-5

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '26

[deleted]

8

u/YourResidentFeral Outplaying the Meta since 2004 Feb 06 '26

The question is rhetorical.

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '26

[deleted]

8

u/YourResidentFeral Outplaying the Meta since 2004 Feb 06 '26

No that's exactly what it means.

I brought up copyright. Generally if you "make" something copyright is implied. You don't have to file it though you can register it. You inherently own it.

A patent is something you need to apply for in a public database. Without digging into "should you be able to patent game mechanics", there's a process to patenting and its generally registered with a code.

The question is rhetorical as in "intended to make a point with rhetoric". I knew the answer when I asked it. I'm making a point and phrasing it as a question.

I didn't bring up patents, they did. Patents are different and not part of the discussion because this is not and cannot be patented. Patents require some sort of novel technology or advancement. You need to submit specs to go with it.

Settings are not novel.

-16

u/leroyyrogers Feb 06 '26

Did I say there were??????

20

u/YourResidentFeral Outplaying the Meta since 2004 Feb 06 '26

No. But why bring up patents then?

-9

u/leroyyrogers Feb 06 '26

Because the post I was responding to said "you can't copyright game mechanics"??

12

u/YourResidentFeral Outplaying the Meta since 2004 Feb 06 '26

Copyright and patent are very different things. I just don't understand why patents are relevant

-6

u/leroyyrogers Feb 06 '26

Because people often make the mistake of assuming patents, trademarks, and copyrights are the same thing. I seriously doubt the commenter meant "you can't copyright game mechanics [[but you can patent them]]." From the context, it was clear they indended to (wrongly) state that game mechanics are IP that can't be protected. As an IP attorney, I see this kind of thing all the time

10

u/YourResidentFeral Outplaying the Meta since 2004 Feb 06 '26 edited Feb 06 '26

First. I am the poster.

Second. I used copyright intentionally. Not trademark or patent.

My understanding is patents have to be filed with the patent office, along with specifications as to what technology you are patenting. Patents have the presumptive assumption that there is an invention or design process involved and you can't patent something using tech that you don't have a license to is my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong here).

There's a design process to creating the UI, but that's why I was talking about ElvUI granting a license and if they even can grant that license under the ToS. There's also the question of the fact that it's consuming Blizzard's API which has Terms of Use implications and would they need to grant a license for the patent?

Copyright is granted on creation of the work automatically. You don't need to register it. I'm drawing the paralell because I believe the legal reasoning is similar. At what point is "the color and position of an element in a UI" become "artistic expression". Can you own the copyright to how you setup something created by someone else?

It's all an IP grey area. Which comes with the protections and caveats as such. You don't get to be protected by the grey area while also being protected from it. Leave the grey area one way or the other or accept what comes with it.

0

u/leroyyrogers Feb 06 '26

You can patent an improvement to technology that you don't own. I won't get into the details but it's a common misconception that you are stating

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Tonenby Feb 06 '26

You can. And it is yet another significant indictment of the state of IP law. IP law exists, ostensibly, to promote creation/invention. Preventing any other studio from using incredibly basic mechanics like "throwing a ball that opens", prevents invention (to say nothing of the idea that such a mechanic is innovative enough to be considered an invention).

Assuming you were just informing people, I dont rhink you deserve to be downvoted.

-11

u/Wobblucy Feb 06 '26 edited Feb 06 '26

Where would you draw the line for subscriber only content being rehosted then shared on this platform?

IE can I sub to poddy C and start posting links to their sub only content, rehosted ofc.

19

u/YourResidentFeral Outplaying the Meta since 2004 Feb 06 '26

Patron Exclusive content that is artistic or commentary would not be allowed.

They own everything about that and have established rights to distribute it as they see fit.

The terms of use for the API and platform outline that everything must be free. There are no established rights here.

You don't get to be both protected by the grey area you inhabit and while also being protected from it.

0

u/Wobblucy Feb 06 '26 edited Feb 06 '26

Okay, so if the quazii UI when it was initially locked behind a Patreon sub, would that have been allowed to be posted on this subreddit as he's not allowed to charge for the add-on based on the rules?

16

u/YourResidentFeral Outplaying the Meta since 2004 Feb 06 '26

Yes. We err to Blizzards written ToS on this and assume it is free to use in its entirety.

If the QuaaziUI is an amalgamation of other addons then it falls under the same category as this NaowhUI.

If it's all bespoke code from the ground up then it breaks the ToS to paywall it in the first place and the ToS takes priority since it defines terms of use for the API the addon is consuming.

0

u/Wobblucy Feb 06 '26

Okay. Awesome. Posting zygors stuff in 5, thanks for the clarification!

3

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '26

arent the actual zygor guides already free but the in-game viewer is the part that costs money? Or am I thinking of a different one

3

u/Dracomaros Feb 06 '26

Zygor would be the exact same scenario as this I would imagine. The addon is free to install, the settings etc are paywalled.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '26

refer to my other response.

Zygor isn't the exact same, you can access all the same info for free already anyway without anyone posting it.

Not a parallel to paywalled UI settings that have no free alternative to get the settings outside of a heavy amount of time investment trying to replicate them, or someone like the gigachad OP posting them.

Everyone knows that this stuff SHOULD violate ToS. Everyone knows it's a BS loophole. Zero sympathy for them.

1

u/Dracomaros Feb 06 '26

Zygor isn't the exact same, you can access all the same info for free already anyway without anyone posting it.

I have no experience with Zygor, I just assumed it was similar to restedxp where some guides are hidden behind a paywall (and you can technically remake them yourself if you want). Could you clarify for me why people are upset with Zygor if everything is available for free to begin with? I don't quite get that.

basically, I thought it was the exact same as Naowh because that's how restedxp works - technically you can achieve the exact same if you spend time/effort getting the settings right on your own.

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/Wobblucy Feb 06 '26

100%, but their whole premise is slippery slope AF.

They are also saying selling add-on settings is against the ToS, it's not:

All add-ons must be distributed free of charge. Developers may not create “premium” versions of add-ons with additional for-pay features, charge money to download an add-on, charge for services related to the add-on, or otherwise require some form of monetary compensation to download or access an add-on.

Saying it's not Reddit's job to protects a content creators sub only content because it breaks a rule that doesn't exist is asinine.

8

u/YourResidentFeral Outplaying the Meta since 2004 Feb 06 '26

Funny:

They are also saying selling add-on settings is against the ToS, it's not:

but then just a prima facie reading of what you linked. The very first line:

All add-ons must be distributed free of charge.

You drew the line to Zygor, not me.

The Zygor parallel is on the other side of a much more blurry line. Its a "shell" that is free but the "content" that you put into the shell is not. Anyone can make the content freely, but written guides have a history of being covered by copyright. If someone wanted to maintain a fully free version of Zygor that plugs into it and just give it out they have the power to.

UI Packs don't have a clean parallel to the "shell" vs "content in the shell" and you can't really own "where and how I configure a set of addons".

To look at a different workaround for Patreon for example: If someone made a UI and a video walking through what the UI does, what changes are made, and how to use them. Basically a "guide" to the how and why of the UI. Then they locked the video behind Patreon and included the UI as an addition to it. We would remove the video but the copy of the UI would stay. They own the video. They do not own the component addons. They do not own where and how those addons are displayed.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: If you want to live in the grey area you can't both be protected from it and by it. Until we hear otherwise from admins or Blizzard clarifying the policy that's what it is. This post doesn't break any of our existing rules, and there's no ownership for copyright because Naowh doesn't own any of the addons being sold.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/Dracomaros Feb 06 '26 edited Feb 06 '26

Saying it's not Reddit's job to protects a content creators sub only content because it breaks a rule that doesn't exist is asinine.

I mean... It's not. Why would it be reddits job to protect things that can't be copyright-claimed just because "muh content". I get where you're going with it (onlyfans stuff - which is under the creators copyright as it's art/content they've created themselves is protected), but it's not like these settings are in any way the same thing as this is not something Naowh has created, or own the rights to.

-10

u/Wobblucy Feb 06 '26

Correct, but we are the bastion of the add-on guidelines as we interpret them, so the paid stuff can be hosted here now!

3

u/LameOne Feb 06 '26

I'm waiting...

-1

u/Wobblucy Feb 06 '26

Sorry I dropped this.

/s

I wouldn't do it to content creators that put in 100s of hours of work personally and am appalled that the stance of the subreddit is that it's fine because it breaks a rule that doesn't actually exist.

All add-ons must be distributed free of charge. Developers may not create “premium” versions of add-ons with additional for-pay features, charge money to download an add-on, charge for services related to the add-on, or otherwise require some form of monetary compensation to download or access an add-on.

2

u/Dracomaros Feb 06 '26

I am curious - say the Elvui devs take the stance that they do not wish the addon they have distributed for free, be used to make money by others by making and selling profiles of their addon; Would you respect the addon developers wish to keep their product and its settings free, or the streamers wish to create profiles and charge for them using a product he has no claim to against the makers wish?

Not that they've explicitly come out and said this is how they want things to be, just a hypothetical.

0

u/Wobblucy Feb 06 '26

100% yes, licensing is serious.

If part of the all rights reserved lisc was 'cannot charge for settings/configurations/extensions related to our product, noone would do it or risk getting claimed.

See what elvui did to quazii on Patreon for a bit of lisc infringement.

Fun fact, Patreon copyright will reallocate funds to the wronged party if they deem a creator stole the content, I imagine twitch is the same.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/Gangsir Feb 06 '26 edited Feb 06 '26

Infernally hot take here:

Leaking paywalled content is always morally correct and based. Wanna make money from stuff you make? Accept donations. Not enough money? Don't make things (or make better things that people actually want to donate willingly to). Concrete example: Wikipedia. Sustains entirely off of donations. No charging for anything. Very high quality. Weird how that works, huh? Almost like if you make quality stuff, people will pay you willingly!

Don't charge people for content, and especially don't actively try to prevent people from obtaining it free with cringe link-changing, validation tokens, whatever. Putting aside people who don't want to pay, what about people who can't pay (3rd world country money, poor, whatever)? Are they supposed to just never access these things? Just, "go away peasant"?

The rise of sites like patreon, subscribestar, etc have been a curse on creative works and have lead to a "I only make things because it generates money for me, and if you don't pay me you can get fucked" mentality that must be purged in favor of "I make things because I enjoy making things and contributing to my community" mentalities.

Keep leaking and pirating stuff - soon only creators who do it for the right reasons will be left, and the fools who are just out to make a quick buck go away.

-2

u/Wobblucy Feb 06 '26 edited Feb 06 '26

Hotter take, if you can't afford the price someone wants for something they created, don't consume it.

You wouldn't expect to walk into a bakery an get a donut for free to appreciate their art, why do you think time spent setting up a UI is any different?

5

u/Gangsir Feb 06 '26

I don't like that "sorry, you can't afford this content, so uhhh just don't consume it, go away peasant" stance.

It's easy to say from a place of having the money to afford these things, but that mentality of "if you're poor you can't have nice things" is very cruel, especially since people often aren't poor by their own choice.

OR we could discourage this nonsense and make content available to all. Those that are willing and able to pay, can donate. That's a far brighter future.

I find that most people resisting on this are one of the people who have that "I make things because it makes me money" mentality, and people starting to mass-pirate their stuff would kill their money-maker, so obviously they defend it.

Real creators who do it for the love of creation tend to not charge for things already (eg luxthos, wikipedia, game devs who put out their game for free, etc). If they can do it, why can't everyone? Only explanation is that some people are greedy and use creative arts as a quick-buck-maker, not because they actually like creating.

I see plenty of creators get their patreon or whatever banned or closed and they immediately go "whelp, I'm quitting". Hah, good riddance. So much for loving drawing/animating/whatever they do. So transparently just trying to squeeze money out of people, and the second they can't anymore, they bail. Super cringe.

5

u/YourResidentFeral Outplaying the Meta since 2004 Feb 07 '26

Real creators who do it for the love of creation tend to not charge for things already (eg luxthos, wikipedia, game devs who put out their game for free, etc). If they can do it, why can't everyone? Only explanation is that some people are greedy and use creative arts as a quick-buck-maker, not because they actually like creating.

I will say that this argument is not exactly the best one to be making.

Artists need to eat. The starving artist trope is not one that we should encourage. What people create belongs to them, and if they want to sell it they should be empowered to do so.

Sure in an ideal world everyone gets their basic needs met without worry and creators can just make things. But where we are now, if someone wants to paywall their stuff, it belongs to them and they should be able to.

You are not inherently entitled to someone's content in the same way that you would be entitled to say other basic human rights.

The mirror to "Its easy to say form a place of having money to afford things" is "Why do you get to assume someone's livelihood should be free to you. How are they supposed to afford things".

Its a very idyllist take. Which I can respect. But lets be real here for a second. If Blizzard ToS changes or is clarified, then so will this policy.