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).

 

[Vaalingrade]

Ok. It’s good to understand your position. All competitions that require some kind of creative effort are wrong without guaranteed pay out (which stops it being a competition). Fine. You’ve made that clear.

Are you just openly ignoring the 'And we also own your stuff' portion of this? It's a pretty big component.

 

[BookTenTiger]

@TheSword although all those contests sound like amazing experiences, Digital Art Contests run by large companies have a history of being exploitative. Personally, I (and many artists who have written more eloquently about it) see them as a different category than a general-purpose contest, which can be a lot of fun!

All the problems with the principles go away when you stop treating contests like this as work and think of them as entertainment instead.

People seem to be under the miconception that big companies run art contests to generate art, when the actual purpose is to generate Fan Engagement. Every minute someone spends working on an entry ties them mentally closer to the Brand, even if the entry is artistically hopeless and stands no chance of winning. If the winning entry is good enough to include in a Product then that's merely a bonus.

From what we know about the DDB contest, if it was meant to entertain their community it failed. According to their own statement, it's feedback from their own community that convinced them to cancel their own contest.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

From what we know about the DDB contest, if it was meant to entertain their community it failed. According to their own statement, it's feedback from their own community that convinced them to cancel their own contest.

Feedback from a vocal minority, not the community. This is why we can't have nice things.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

Somebody sent me this video on spec work after the topic came up in a conversation elsewhere. Nine years old, but still seems relevant.


In the Design World SPEC WORK is short for SPECULATIVE WORK and that means... ummmm... its kind of like when you... ahhh.... it basically means: "Working for Free"

It usually comes in two forms:

One:

A client asks several designers - or design firms - to complete part of a new project. The client picks one winner, gives them the job, and the others go home with nothing for their hard work.

Two:

A client starts a "contest" and gather's submission from hundred's, if not thousands of designers. They pick one winner, pay a modest fee, and the rest go home with nothing for their hard work.

So What's Wrong With This?

If you are a client, the best design work should come out of a healthy relationship with a designer, where your needs and wants are understood, and ideas are developed with you from the ground up. Just because you get lots of free designs, doesn't mean any of them are good and in fact, many can be blatant rip offs. Spec Contests have actually created an underground system whereby some unscrupulous designers will quickly enter as many as possible as they copy work from the web and present it as their own. So that new logo of yours... may actually already be someone else's...

If you are a designer, you just shouldn't work for established companies for free, period. If you need to build your portfolio there are other ways! Design for a local charity, or your friend's new business, or just spend the time creating your own projects.

Spec Work would seem absurd in most other professional industries...

Could you ask several chef's to prepare your next meal for free and then only pay for the best one? Could you hold a contest and get 100s of lawyers to write your will and then only pick and reward one?

Didn't think so... perhaps its time we started to treat designers, you know, just like everyone else?

Think about it.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Feedback from a vocal minority, not the community. This is why we can't have nice things.

How do you know it was a vocal minority?

 

[Azzy]

If you're not an artist, stop telling actual artists (professional or otherwise) how they should feel about this and that their complaints are somehow invalid. Artists (regardless of art form) regularly get shafted when it comes to compensation for work and ownership of work and contests like these don't help.

 

[TheSword]

If you're not an artist, stop telling actual artists (professional or otherwise) how they should feel about this and that their complaints are somehow invalid. Artists (regardless of art form) regularly get shafted when it comes to compensation for work and ownership of work and contests like these don't help.

If you’re an artist. Stop telling amateurs they can’t enter open competitions because you think you should just be invoiced for the work (even though you probably won’t because it isn’t that kind of commission).

The scale of the challenge of course makes a difference. A token ring is not the same as full colour character, full body character portraits.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I personally think the whole thing sucks but this kind of thing is unavoidable.

I play little league baseball and then high school and college ball. Ultimately I get to the minor leagues. I am hoping beyond hope of becoming professional.

hours of sweat blood and tears at the prospect of making it but I don’t. I get none of the sales from concessions and little pay.

when it does not happen I have to fall back on that damned degree or go punch a clock like everyone else.

exploitative? I mean I had lean and hungry years in the minors while my buddies punched a clock…

most of us would not tear down sports because it led to “free labor.” I don’t think?

 

[TheSword]

@TheSword although all those contests sound like amazing experiences, Digital Art Contests run by large companies have a history of being exploitative. Personally, I (and many artists who have written more eloquently about it) see them as a different category than a general-purpose contest, which can be a lot of fun!


From what we know about the DDB contest, if it was meant to entertain their community it failed. According to their own statement, it's feedback from their own community that convinced them to cancel their own contest.

Well it never had chance to entertain anybody because it was shut down.

Carrying over assumptions about exploitative practices to companies that aren’t exploiting people seem unreasonable to me.

As Morrus says, “if you use it, you pay for it.” I’m not sure what people’s justification for a higher standard than that is.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Well it never had chance to entertain anybody because it was shut down.

DDB: We think this contest will be fun for our community.

Community: We have problems with the contest.

DDB: After listening to our community, we are pulling the contest, and will find other ways to engage.

@TheSword I really don't see a problem here. The contest did not serve the needs of the community, based on community feedback. DDB is now serving their community by canceling the contest and trying something else. They're not canceling it because a bunch of outsiders made a stink - as far as we know (based on the statement by DDB), their choice to pull the contest is based on feedback from the community they were targeting with the contest.