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).

 

[guachi]

So you can no longer see the real WKRP in Cincinnati, where rock songs of the 1970s were important not just for the jokes in the show, but sometimes the plots of whole episodes. Northern Exposure isn't even available in a bowdlerized form.

The rights to almost all the music in WKRP was tracked down (all but six songs or so) and now you can get it on DVD, if you're interested. But your point stands. Took a long time for the music rights for China Beach and Wonder Years, as well.

Stuff that will probably never happen will be shows like Norther Exposure (as you mentioned), Malcolm in the Middle or Cold Case Files.

 

[Hussar]

Just as a side note though, isn't the example of WKRP a pretty good example for what companies shouldn't be doing? I mean, if you're going to make a TV show about a radio station and use other people's music as a major element of the show, shouldn't you be paying for it? I mean, sure, it's great that they tracked down the artists later on down the line and got the rights. But, doesn't the fact that the network(s) that ran the show made considerable profits without paying people for their work, even if it wasn't really done for nefarious reasons, demonstrate pretty clearly why artist rights need to be protected?

We have two sort of competing elements here- protecting the artists and protecting the companies. I get that companies want to be protected from future litigation. Sure, totally understandable. But, by and large, companies haven't really been the ones who've had their work exploited for years and years. And, again, while I get the need to protect yourself from litigation, it's not like litigation is something you can assume will always happen if you don't take these measures.

Yes, I totally get that companies get sued over this stuff. There are all sorts of very public lawsuits. Totally understand. But, overall, what are the actual odds of a company getting sued over this sort of thing? Versus the odds of artists being screwed over by companies not respecting creative rights?

After all, context matters. We're not talking about some tiny little company with one or two guys working out of their house. We're talking about a multi-million dollar company that can run this sort of contest specifically because it's so big. I could announce that I'm running a cartography contest for the next module that I want to make. The winner will get their map put into my module and get some swag. Additionally, I will keep the rights to all the submitted art that I receive.

Now, I'm pretty sure no one is going to answer Hussar's Contest. Why would they? I'm nobody and I have zero clout in the industry. So, D&D Beyond can run this sort of contest because of it's market presence. But, it's size also means that it can actually afford to pay professional rates for art and not do a contest at all and still get the best art for it's products. The contest is 100% marketing. I'm not sure that advertising a product is worth forcing those who are promoting your product to give up any of their ownership rights for zero compensation.

 

[Wolfram stout]

And sometimes reusing using artwork without the correct permissions gives us awesome games like Hackmaster.

I apologize if that has already been mentioned.

 

[Lanefan]

Just as a side note though, isn't the example of WKRP a pretty good example for what companies shouldn't be doing? I mean, if you're going to make a TV show about a radio station and use other people's music as a major element of the show, shouldn't you be paying for it? I mean, sure, it's great that they tracked down the artists later on down the line and got the rights.

I can't imagine the WKRP producers didn't get clearance to use that music in the initial airings and network reruns of the show itself. That would be a get-someone-fired degree of negligence.

The tracking-down for additional rights was in relation to later releases on media (e.g. DVD) that didn't exist when the show first ran.

After all, context matters. We're not talking about some tiny little company with one or two guys working out of their house. We're talking about a multi-million dollar company that can run this sort of contest specifically because it's so big. I could announce that I'm running a cartography contest for the next module that I want to make. The winner will get their map put into my module and get some swag. Additionally, I will keep the rights to all the submitted art that I receive.

What do you need a map of?

 

[Hussar]

I think this whole thing about the image search brings up a very important point.

The defense for all this is that it protects the contest runner from lawsuits. Which is true up to a point. It does protect the contest runner from lawsuits from the contestants in the contest. But, it does nothing to protect the contest runner from lawsuits from everyone else.

After all, there's no guarantee that the contest winner is not copying (completely inadvertently, absolutely no bad faith going on) someone else's work. Particularly for something as small as an icon frame. There are literally thousands of these frames out there right now. Heck, I've used the token generator in this thread: Free - Battle maps and VTT token maker/generator to make tokens for my game. Right there, there are about 30 borders at that site. There are literally hundreds already out in the wild and probably thousands.

So, before a contest winner was announced, you'd think that the contest runner would be obligated to do some sort of image search, if only to protect themselves from legal issues down the road.

My point is, taking the rights away from the creatives who enter the contest doesn't actually do what people are claiming. It doesn't protect the company. It protects the company against those that entered the contest, sure, but, so what? The company will still have to spend the money on an image search anyway. There's no getting around that, not if you want to protect yourselves from lawsuits.

So, what is this actually doing? If it's not actually preventing lawsuits, only the potential from lawsuits from contestants, is that really worth it?

 

[FrogReaver]

My random thoughts.

• Seems there's a good legal reason for companies to include the 'we own your work but you do too' style language.
• Generally speaking, if someone feels something is exploitative they don't participate. If Joe Blow freely chose to participate, who are we to tell him he is being 'exploited' or 'preyed upon' or whatever?
• The real issue for artwork is deeper. I think the deeper issue with art is that people in general are creative and as such will produce art and other creative works whether they get paid for it or not. Many will share those works whether they get paid for them or not. As such that creative nudge that allows us to create and enjoy art is the same reason that so many find it difficult to make a living off art. Also, in the digital age everyone can be an artist and can easily display their works for the whole world to see. Heck, they can even sale the same exact work multiple times. That makes for far too much competition and ease of access. Competition and ease of access drives down prices, except for the top 1% or so, where ease of access actually helps them drive their prices higher as ease of access helps expand their customer base. Anyways, the point is that becoming a professional artist is harder than ever in many ways. The previous point plays into the next one. It's in the paid artists benefit to push for amateur unpaid artists of any skill level to stop offering their works for no/trivial compensation. It's essentially less competition and less exposure for possible competitors. To me that makes the motivations selfish and not altruistic. IMO driving up prices via limiting competition is exactly the kind of immoral capitalistic behavior that gets despised when corporations do it. Ultimately, I think it's more human nature than corporations that cause the difficulty so many creative people experience in pursing a living based on their creativeness.

 

[FrogReaver]

My point is, taking the rights away from the creatives who enter the contest doesn't actually do what people are claiming. It doesn't protect the company. It protects the company against those that entered the contest, sure, but, so what? The company will still have to spend the money on an image search anyway. There's no getting around that, not if you want to protect yourselves from lawsuits.

So, what is this actually doing? If it's not actually preventing lawsuits, only the potential from lawsuits from contestants, is that really worth it?

I think that's a solid point. I'm no lawyer but I would think a case would be much more likely to arise (you would be more likely to become aware they created something similar to your work) and be easier to win and/or achieve a larger payout because there's records that the company received your artwork prior to producing something similar.

 

[TheSword]

I think this whole thing about the image search brings up a very important point.

The defense for all this is that it protects the contest runner from lawsuits. Which is true up to a point. It does protect the contest runner from lawsuits from the contestants in the contest. But, it does nothing to protect the contest runner from lawsuits from everyone else.

After all, there's no guarantee that the contest winner is not copying (completely inadvertently, absolutely no bad faith going on) someone else's work. Particularly for something as small as an icon frame. There are literally thousands of these frames out there right now. Heck, I've used the token generator in this thread: Free - Battle maps and VTT token maker/generator to make tokens for my game. Right there, there are about 30 borders at that site. There are literally hundreds already out in the wild and probably thousands.

So, before a contest winner was announced, you'd think that the contest runner would be obligated to do some sort of image search, if only to protect themselves from legal issues down the road.

My point is, taking the rights away from the creatives who enter the contest doesn't actually do what people are claiming. It doesn't protect the company. It protects the company against those that entered the contest, sure, but, so what? The company will still have to spend the money on an image search anyway. There's no getting around that, not if you want to protect yourselves from lawsuits.

So, what is this actually doing? If it's not actually preventing lawsuits, only the potential from lawsuits from contestants, is that really worth it?

Under the terms of the contest the entrant certifies that the work is their own work and that they have the right to use it. Submitting it would put liability on the entrant not DDB.

I think you’re barking up the wrong tree there.

 

[Hussar]

I think that's a solid point. I'm no lawyer but I would think a case would be much more likely to arise (you would be more likely to become aware they created something similar to your work) and be easier to win and/or achieve a larger payout because there's records that the company received your artwork prior to producing something similar.

But, it's also the easiest to nip in the bud. You keep the artwork, do a quick MS Photo search and poof, none of the new art that you are using copies the old art from the contest. Pretty simple.

Under the terms of the contest the entrant certifies that the work is their own work and that they have the right to use it. Submitting it would put liability on the entrant not DDB.

I think you’re barking up the wrong tree there.

Again, @TheSword, I'm asking very, very nicely, please READ what I write before you answer.

It doesn't matter that the entrant said they had the rights of use. No one is going to expect an entrant to a contest to spend thousands of dollars on an image search. But, there is a pretty big expectation that a million dollar company would. There's a possibility that that great idea that you had for an artwork isn't an original idea. It happens all the time. So, DDB, before they could declare a winner, would have to do an image search. Not because anyone is cheating or trying to be underhanded, but, simply because great ideas are great and often not limited to one person ever.

So, no, the liability isn't on the entrant. Because it's not the entrant that published a copyright violating artwork on a product. Sure, they could sue the artist too. After all, that artist did make the artwork. But, let's be honest, they're going to sue DDB too.

 

[TheSword]

But, it's also the easiest to nip in the bud. You keep the artwork, do a quick MS Photo search and poof, none of the new art that you are using copies the old art from the contest. Pretty simple.

Again, @TheSword, I'm asking very, very nicely, please READ what I write before you answer.

It doesn't matter that the entrant said they had the rights of use. No one is going to expect an entrant to a contest to spend thousands of dollars on an image search. But, there is a pretty big expectation that a million dollar company would. There's a possibility that that great idea that you had for an artwork isn't an original idea. It happens all the time. So, DDB, before they could declare a winner, would have to do an image search. Not because anyone is cheating or trying to be underhanded, but, simply because great ideas are great and often not limited to one person ever.

So, no, the liability isn't on the entrant. Because it's not the entrant that published a copyright violating artwork on a product. Sure, they could sue the artist too. After all, that artist did make the artwork. But, let's be honest, they're going to sue DDB too.

In this specific case, I think you misunderstand the way copyright applies to art Hussar. You can copyright a specific illustration but you can’t copyright a concept or a style. So in this case you can’t accidentally copy someone’s work.

If you draw a dragon biting it’s tail you can copyright that specific image. But I can also draw a dragon biting it’s tail which is also protected for me but not the concept or the style behind it. Someone would need to copy the exact same ring token image to fall afoul of the copyright rules.

If an entrant in any competition fraudulently submits work not their own then the competition holder might need to withdraw the work if requested by the true owner, but the company hasn’t really lost anything. Nor would they be blamed in the court of public option because of a fraudulent entrant. They would withdraw the prize, the runner up wins. Simple.

Fraud by entrants is very rare. Now in other creative concepts where something other than just an illustration is entered, for instance the DM Contest or the 2014 setting competition then there is more risk.