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).

 

[Erdric Dragin]

This is about people ruining something for others. If you don't like the contest, the solution was not to enter it. Those that were entering it were fine with the prizes or else they wouldn't have entered. Not all contests are for all people.

So your work wasn't enough to win, yet good enough for them to profit off of with you getting a dime for it? Sounds extremely unethical. Anyone ok with that needs their head checked for whatever form of mind they have that think it's ok to quite literally steal.

 

[Lanefan]

Wizbang and Snarf have explained the legal issues and why it's not so simple. I haven't seen anyone provide an alternative way to do this type of contest that addresses those legal concerns except for some random spitballing which would not be satisfactory.

I tried, upthread, but as I'm not a lawyer it'd probably fall under "random spitballing".

Any lawyers wanna take a crack at this?

 

[Hussar]

We've already been over this. Point me to a case of someone selling exclusive rights to token frames. It's ridiculous.

Really? You think that the token frames for a virtual tabletop would not be exclusive? That Fantasy Grounds, Role 20, Astral and various other VTT's are not licensing the art for the frames they use for the tokens they have for their programs?

 

[Hussar]

/snip

so who benefits if they do away from the contest? I am not asking rhetorically.

Anyone who makes a living producing art for virtual tabletops? There are already several artists who do so. Sure, it's a pretty niche product, but, it's not like there aren't already people doing it. Funnily enough, they didn't do it by screwing over hundreds or thousands of other potential artists. They did it by building a portfolio, advertising their product and then making their product available for purchase. At no point did they expect hundreds or thousands of other artists to give them the rights to their art in exchange for a tiny number of them to get "exposure".

But, hey, if a company that can afford to pay artists is doing it, it must be okay right?

 

[Hussar]

Wizbang and Snarf have explained the legal issues and why it's not so simple. I haven't seen anyone provide an alternative way to do this type of contest that addresses those legal concerns except for some random spitballing which would not be satisfactory. Morrus has said that there are easy workarounds that are regularly used but he hasn't provided any examples. I really would like to see such examples because if there really is a good compromise then showing it would result in a far more productive discussion.

Here's an alternative - DON'T DO IT. Or, don't expect to get the rights to thousands of man hours of work for free just because you might want to sell that thing in the future. There are thousands of ways to have art contests that don't involve screwing over the artists.

The company has a legal concern not because they plan on selling the art from the contest. As has already been explained, the concern is that by chance something original the company has produced in the future in some way resembles a contestant's entry.

Ok, let's be clear here. We're talking about a VTT frame. So, it's not like any old circle is going to be an issue. In order to be an issue, DDB would have to produce, for profit, a VTT frame. Again, "We're going to run this contest that is screwing over artists by taking their rights because we're worried that at some point in the future one of our products might get us sued" seems a pretty good reason not to do this contest.

IOW, you want to have a contest that highlights community artists? Fantastic. Great idea. But do for stuff that you're not going to sell later on down the line. Or, here's a thought, keep the entries on file, and when you are commissioning an artist to make a VTT frame for you, you run a quick seach and make sure that it's not too similar to what you already received. You wanted the publicity, well, sure, but, guess what? That publicity is going to cost you something - the ability to profit from the free labor of others.

Why is it the artists have to give up their rights to enter your contest? Shouldn't the contest runner have to foot the bills?

 

[Hussar]

But is it exploitive? There has been a lot of hyperbole in this thread, such as equating this public art contest with child labor and sweatshops. Does the Best DM competition's need for improvement place it in the same category as child labor and sweatshops, or are we going to dial back the rhetoric in this thread so that things can be kept in proper perspective?

Umm, there is a significant difference here. Best DMs Competition is allowing people to use WotC IP. That right there makes it very different from asking for a 100% original work. Or, to put it another way, as soon as you create ANYTHING specifically for D&D, you don't have the exclusive rights to it. That's what the SRD is for after all. To allow you to create material for D&D, and even sell it, without getting sued.

So, it's apples and oranges.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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?

Actually (don't know if this came up already or not) there is currently a LOT of discussion about college Football. Universities making millions of dollars, selling the player's likeness to video game companies, and the players don't get compensated beyond scholarships.

Heck, there was a huge controversy a few years ago because some Ohio State players sold their championship rings for some cash, and the college sued them because they weren't allowed to do that.

 

[HomegrownHydra]

Here's an alternative - DON'T DO IT. Or, don't expect to get the rights to thousands of man hours of work for free just because you might want to sell that thing in the future.

Again, the company is not looking to sell the art in the future.

There are thousands of ways to have art contests that don't involve screwing over the artists.

Please provide some of these ways. That's what I've been asking for.

Ok, let's be clear here. We're talking about a VTT frame. So, it's not like any old circle is going to be an issue. In order to be an issue, DDB would have to produce, for profit, a VTT frame. Again, "We're going to run this contest that is screwing over artists by taking their rights because we're worried that at some point in the future one of our products might get us sued" seems a pretty good reason not to do this contest.

That there is a potential that someone might sue you doesn't mean that what you are doing is wrong. When products contain ridiculous disclaimers like "Don't use this clothing iron on clothes you are wearing" in order to head off lawsuits that isn't an admission that their product is bad and shouldn't be sold.

IOW, you want to have a contest that highlights community artists? Fantastic. Great idea. But do for stuff that you're not going to sell later on down the line. Or, here's a thought, keep the entries on file, and when you are commissioning an artist to make a VTT frame for you, you run a quick seach and make sure that it's not too similar to what you already received. You wanted the publicity, well, sure, but, guess what? That publicity is going to cost you something - the ability to profit from the free labor of others.

1) The contest isn't about accumulating art to be sold later.
2) Expecting a company to have all of their content creators go through all of the thousands of contest submissions every single time they are commissioned to produce something to make sure their work in no way resembles any of the submissions is totally unreasonable.

Why is it the artists have to give up their rights to enter your contest? Shouldn't the contest runner have to foot the bills?

It's not normal for organizations and companies hosting a contest to pay for the supplies and time of the contestants. People who take part in a pie baking contest at a county fair don't get paid for their ingredients and effort. People can decide if they agree to that or not before they enter. As for giving up rights in the case of digital art, the reasoning has been explained.

 

[Malmuria]

Actually (don't know if this came up already or not) there is currently a LOT of discussion about college Football. Universities making millions of dollars, selling the player's likeness to video game companies, and the players don't get compensated beyond scholarships.

Heck, there was a huge controversy a few years ago because some Ohio State players sold their championship rings for some cash, and the college sued them because they weren't allowed to do that.

Yeah, sports is exploitative top to bottom, and not just in regards to economics and social class, but also gender and race (see: Olympics, ongoing)

 

[HomegrownHydra]

Umm, there is a significant difference here. Best DMs Competition is allowing people to use WotC IP. That right there makes it very different from asking for a 100% original work. Or, to put it another way, as soon as you create ANYTHING specifically for D&D, you don't have the exclusive rights to it. That's what the SRD is for after all. To allow you to create material for D&D, and even sell it, without getting sued.

So, it's apples and oranges.

It may be apples and oranges, but that doesn't mean apples are like sweatshops and child labor.