D&D 5E D&D Beyond Cancels Competition

D&D Beyond has been running an art contest which asked creators to enter D&D-themed portrait frame. DDB got to use any or all of the entries, while the winner and some runners up received some digital content as a prize.

There was a backlash -- and DDB has cancelled the contest.

Thank you to all of our community for sharing your comments and concerns regarding our anniversary Frame Design Contest.

While we wanted to celebrate fan art as a part of our upcoming anniversary, it's clear that our community disagrees with the way we approached it. We've heard your feedback, and will be pulling the contest.

We will also strive to do better as we continue to look for ways to showcase the passion and creativity of our fellow D&D players and fans in the future. Our team will be taking this as a learning moment, and as encouragement to further educate ourselves in this pursuit.

Your feedback is absolutely instrumental to us, and we are always happy to listen and grow in response to our community's needs and concerns. Thank you all again for giving us the opportunity to review this event, and take the appropriate action.

The company went on to say:

Members of our community raised concerns about the contest’s impact on artists and designers, and the implications of running a contest to create art where only some entrants would receive a prize, and that the prize was exclusively digital material on D&D Beyond. Issues were similarly raised with regards to the contest terms and conditions. Though the entrants would all retain ownership of their design to use in any way they saw fit, including selling, printing, or reproducing, it also granted D&D Beyond rights to use submitted designs in the future. We have listened to these concerns, and in response closed the competition. We’ll be looking at ways we can better uplift our community, while also doing fun community events, in the future.

Competitions where the company in question acquires rights to all entries are generally frowned upon (unless you're WotC).

 

[Hussar]

It’s not free labor if they don’t use the entries that don’t win.

“You don’t care what the quality is.”

?

If they don’t use those losing entries, they don’t have value to DDB. If they don’t have value, why should they pay for them?

Because they requested work be done, work was done and they now own something that they didn't have before.

Or, do you refuse to pay for work that is done to standard but you happen not to like?

The whole issue is that they own the rights to the work. They OWN something, meaning that that thing has value. If someone does work for you, you pay them. Full stop. Even if you fired them afterward because you didn't like their work, you'd still have to pay for the work they did. Whether or not you go on to use that thing that you now own is irrelevant. Someone sold you something. You have to pay for it. Expecting them to give it to you for free, just because you happen to be a well known company is morally unjustifiable.

If you went to a restaurant, received food that was cooked to spec, as in there was nothing wrong with the food, but, you just didn't like it, would you refuse to pay? And, before anyone talks about quality here, let's not forget that there are second place entrants. And third place. All the way down. At what point do the entrants stop having "any value"? The best is given value but anything less is without value? That's awfully convenient.

 

[Faolyn]

So, 11000 people did unpaid work. I don't care what the quality is. That doesn't matter. WotC asked for the work to be done and they did it. And less than 1 ten thousandth of those people received any compensation. At all. Again, good deal for WotC

in this case there’s a bit of a difference. For the WotC contest, the vast majority of people submitted very rough first draft ideas and most weren’t asked to continue expanding on it. Even the three people invited to the office didn’t have full drafts. With the DDB contest, it seems that people were asked to submit finished pieces. And WotC isn’t profiting off the other two finalist’s work, whereas DDB would have off the other art.

 

[MGibster]

We live in different countries and work in different fields. I am not a full-time game designer. Maybe this field is somehow immune to Sturgeon's Law, but that's pretty remarkable, if true.

Sturgeon's Law is a cynical bit of tripe. 90% of everything isn't crap. There's a lot of stuff I might not personally like but that doesn't make it crap. Hell, some of the stuff I like is actually crap.

It’s a good job we didn’t get this backlash 19 years ago or we would never have gotten to see Eberron.

I thought of the campaign setting contest when I read the opening post to this thread. As I recall, those who submitted rejected settings retained full rights to them. Didn't some of the rejected submissions end up being published by other companies?

 

[TheSword]

in this case there’s a bit of a difference. For the WotC contest, the vast majority of people submitted very rough first draft ideas and most weren’t asked to continue expanding on it. Even the three people invited to the office didn’t have full drafts. With the DDB contest, it seems that people were asked to submit finished pieces. And WotC isn’t profiting off the other two finalist’s work, whereas DDB would have off the other art.

Assuming they did actually sell items that weren’t in the top 10 results. In which case there was no profit.

I thought of the campaign setting contest when I read the opening post to this thread. As I recall, those who submitted rejected settings retained full rights to them. Didn't some of the rejected submissions end up being published by other companies?

Any token frame entrants would still have had rights over their work and could have published them independently if they had liked.

 

[TheSword]

Because they requested work be done, work was done and they now own something that they didn't have before.

Or, do you refuse to pay for work that is done to standard but you happen not to like?

The whole issue is that they own the rights to the work. They OWN something, meaning that that thing has value. If someone does work for you, you pay them. Full stop. Even if you fired them afterward because you didn't like their work, you'd still have to pay for the work they did. Whether or not you go on to use that thing that you now own is irrelevant. Someone sold you something. You have to pay for it. Expecting them to give it to you for free, just because you happen to be a well known company is morally unjustifiable.

If you went to a restaurant, received food that was cooked to spec, as in there was nothing wrong with the food, but, you just didn't like it, would you refuse to pay? And, before anyone talks about quality here, let's not forget that there are second place entrants. And third place. All the way down. At what point do the entrants stop having "any value"? The best is given value but anything less is without value? That's awfully convenient.

You have obviously never watched Masterchef Australia. Or entered your local WI baking competition.

While food requires ingredients to make, a token ring doesn’t. What’s more I can’t sell the cake I’m giving to you to eat, to someone else. I can sell that token ring to someone else.

Not everything a person owns has value, particularly if someone else also owns it. Also consider that forty token rings that look very similar don’t have value to the competition holder for instance. Only the first one does.

Again in this case there would have been 10 prize winners. If DDB had sold the works of non prize winners that would have been immoral. If they didn’t I don’t see the problem.

I entered many competitions as a kid. I won a fair few, I lost most of them. Poetry competitions, book review competitions, lots of “complete the sentence” competitions. When Radio Stoke used my review of the BFG they invited me on the radio and gave me a signed copy of the book. Radio Stoke doesn’t owe me cash for my book review of Matilda just because I sent it to them and they had it in a filing cabinet somewhere with the right to use it.

A lot of what I’m seeing here is extremely paternalistic. I very much doubt that token frame illustrators are relying on prizes to feed their children. Nor do I think multi-million dollar DDB was using the competition to save artist fees on less than a dozen token rings. As they said, they were hoping to celebrate fan art. As someone who’s always been very happy with them as a brand, I take them at their word, until I see otherwise.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

I know, how dare people expect to be paid for their work. Totally unreasonable right?

What's unreasonable is not being able to tell the difference between "work" and a silly contest. Spend your time on something that will get you paid instead if that's important to you.

 

[Lanefan]

It’s not free labor if they don’t use the entries that don’t win.

Those entries that don't win now are still a resource they have on hand for later, legally theirs to put to use whether they choose to do so or not. The generation and production of said resource was done for free, more or less (there may be some non-prize costs associated with running the contest; which even though none of those monies go to the non-winners still count as a production cost for these purposes).

If they don’t use those losing entries, they don’t have value to DDB. If they don’t have value, why should they pay for them?

Whether or not any or all of the non-winning entries have real value to DDB is something that can only be determined in hindsight. Until then, all they have is potential value, just like pretty much any unsold inventory anywhere.

 

[Lanefan]

What's unreasonable is not being able to tell the difference between "work" and a silly contest.

The contest may be silly, sure, but the underlying principles are rather serious.

Perhaps, in fact, a "silly" contest is a good place to haul those principles out into the light and expose them, as doing so isn't causing that much damage to the company running the contest and yet gives a fine opportunity to point out how awful those principles are so other more serious companies might try to find a better way.

 

[TheSword]

Those entries that don't win now are still a resource they have on hand for later, legally theirs to put to use whether they choose to do so or not. The generation and production of said resource was done for free, more or less (there may be some non-prize costs associated with running the contest; which even though none of those monies go to the non-winners still count as a production cost for these purposes).

Whether or not any or all of the non-winning entries have real value to DDB is something that can only be determined in hindsight. Until then, all they have is potential value, just like pretty much any unsold inventory anywhere.

So why don’t we give them a pass. Instead of judging them for what they might do in the future, judge companies for what they actually do.

We can presume sinister intent and profiteering or we can take more optimistic approach and assume a community based company like DDB isn’t trying to screw you, until they actually do.

 

[Hussar]

So why don’t we give them a pass. Instead of judging them for what they might do in the future, judge companies for what they actually do.

We can presume sinister intent and profiteering or we can take more optimistic approach and assume a community based company like DDB isn’t trying to screw you, until they actually do.

Because asking thousands of people to do free work for you IS screwing people over. That's the point that keeps getting glossed over. DDB is getting thousands (collectively) of hours of free labour. Oh, sorry, they giving away inventory to a tiny, tiny fraction of the people who do the work.

Meanwhile, artists who are trying to make a living are sidelined and can't get work because a company is leveraging it's market position to gain free labor and free advertising. If you want someone to make art for your product, HIRE AN ARTIST. Is it really that complicated?

How is this even an argument? No, what they are doing is not justifiable. It's perpetuating the systemic exploitation of people who lack the power or the position to do anything about it and, to top it off, those doing the exploiting aren't even being criticised for it. They're being applauded. :wow: