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).

 

[Xetheral]

If the competition operator isn’t going to use it, and the originator still has their own rights the work. What difference does it make if the operator also owns it?

For one thing, the existence of the license granted to D&D Beyond prevents the artist from later selling exclusive rights to anyone else.

In other words, the artist does not retain full ownership of their work because they've permanently foregone their right to exclusivity.

 

[Greg Benage]

For one thing, the existence of the license granted to D&D Beyond prevents the artist from later selling exclusive rights to anyone else.

Reminder: Token frames. We're talking about token frames. Is there a graphic designer out there selling exclusive rights to token frames? Actually, if a company's contract demands exclusive rights to your token frames, you should just redline and send that back.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Just because that's the way things are doesn't make it right. I fully expect DDB to protect themselves but I think they can find another way to do so without claiming perpetual rights to use submitted work.

But that isn't how it works.* Again, if people don't want to have fan contests ... that's cool. Just say that.

Look, I'll give you an easy-to-understand example. There was a tradition of "lady's nights" at bars. Usually on slow nights (like Mondays or Tuesday), they would offer discounted drinks to women, as it would bring in more women, and thus, more men.

Anyway, certain men began to sue claiming it wasn't gender neutral. I mean- of course it wasn't. So in a lot of places, you can't find these sorts of preferences.

Was this good? Bad? It depends, I guess.

But the same types of people sue, on the same basis, for other reasons. A ballpark that has a Mother's Day promotion? Sued. A gym that allows only women? Sued. And so on.

The actual preference for gender equality is always good, but the devil is in the details. And once the lawsuits start, it's always easier to avoid them.


So, sure. People don't want this fan contest. But the concept is generally applicable to all fan contests- and companies are risk averse If people want to get rid of all fan contests because they think that it's just like wage theft and child labor, then more power to them. But that's what the argument really is.

As for me- I don't really have an opinion on the underlying merits yet. I've always tended to view most fan contests, from the corporate side, as a major PITA, and I can imagine that the general lack of them that we've seen will continue going to almost nothing. If that's a good thing or not, well, I guess it depends on whether you find them enjoyable or a net positive. But there isn't a magic world where large companies are going to run fan contests and not protect themselves.


*Waiver of rights is different than use in submitted works like this.

 

[J.Quondam]

Sounds like they exploited a competition and should be called out by name for it.

Not sure it means competitions that aren’t exploitative should be called out. Though according to a few poster competitions are by nature exploitative. Even my year 5 poetry competition.

So which is it? To hear some posters here tell it, what happened to me is not exploitative. I freely chose to enter, and nothing that happened was illegal or contrary to the rules of submission. Them's the breaks, right?

Point is, we can't really tell on the basis of its rules alone whether a contest will be exploitative until after something exploitative actually happens, can we? How can we decide whether to call out any particular contest or not? It's kind of an all-or-nothing thing.

I'd like to think there's some way to reimagine how competitions are done, in a way that maximizes participation, protect companies hosting them, and reliably protect amateur and professional creators. No idea how to do that, though, so it's probably hopelessly naive.

 

[R_J_K75]

It wasn't to give them exposure it was to avoid paying them as the tour couldn't afford it. Somehow they ended up being able to afford to pay them though.

I stand corrected. Lets face it, everyone drinks in the parking lot for the opening act. Only opening act I ever saw that was worth a damn was Alice In Chains for Facelift on the Clash of the Titans Tour. Ironically we drank underneath the Skyway when they opened up for Van Halen '92ish for their Dirt tour. They were extremely popular at the time and to this day I scratch my head asking why we didn't go in to see them. Life's funny that way.

 

[R_J_K75]

Point is, we can't really tell on the basis of its rules alone whether a contest will be exploitative until after something exploitative actually happens, can we? How can we decide whether to call out any particular contest or not? It's kind of an all-or-nothing thing.

Think the thing here its a contest. Some people are going to win, and some will lose...enter at your own risk.

 

[TheSword]

So which is it? To hear some posters here tell it, what happened to me is not exploitative. I freely chose to enter, and nothing that happened was illegal or contrary to the rules of submission. Them's the breaks, right?

Point is, we can't really tell on the basis of its rules alone whether a contest will be exploitative until after something exploitative actually happens, can we? How can we decide whether to call out any particular contest or not? It's kind of an all-or-nothing thing.

I'd like to think there's some way to reimagine how competitions are done, in a way that maximizes participation, protect companies hosting them, and reliably protect amateur and professional creators. No idea how to do that, though, so it's probably hopelessly naive.

Pretty straightforward. They used your work (with minor editing) and you weren’t remunerated for it. That’s exploitative. Fairly clear cut neh?

You’re right, you can’t tell by the rules. So go by past performance, brand quality, assurance of employees. We don’t assume everyone is exploitative… until they actually are. I thought that would be a basic principle of fairness.

 

[J.Quondam]

Pretty straightforward. They used your work (with minor editing) and you weren’t remunerated for it. That’s exploitative. Fairly clear cut neh?

No, it's really not, apparently. Just look at your comment, the one right above yours, and those by a dozen other posters here. It very obviously is not "fairly clear cut."

Hence the 300 post thread.

 

[TheSword]

No, it's really not, apparently. Just look at your comment, the one right above yours, and those by a dozen other posters here. It very obviously is not "fairly clear cut."

Hence the 300 post thread.

They’re wrong

There is a position somewhere between… any competition rules are fair game (let the entrant beware) and the opposing view that all competitions are exploitative (those school creative writing competitions were child labor.)

As usual, perspective helps find a reasonable way.

 

[Maxperson]

IF there is something that many new artists are willing to do, that many older and more experienced artists are not, there is a high chance there is a reason for that.

Yep. It's the same reason experienced executives don't bother with entry level positions.

If experienced artists wouldn't enter this sort of contest, there is a reason, in their expeirence, that makes it bad for their career.

Or it jump started those careers.