D&D 5E D&D Beyond Cancels Competition

PsyzhranV2 · Aug 2, 2021

This thread right now:

Hussar · Aug 2, 2021

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

Seriously? That's the takeaway? You flat out admit that the point you were making doesn't apply since no one is giving up any rights whatsoever when entering a WotC contest or submitting material to WotC, but, then you're going stand pat on the tone policing because you don't like the comparison between different kinds of exploitation?

Ok, you are 100% correct. Exploitation through companies getting thousands of hours of free labour by leveraging their market position is totally different from companies getting thousands of hours of cheap labour by leveraging the poverty of the exploited. There, you're right. Totally different. Complete night and day.

Now, can we actually get back to the topic at hand?

J.Quondam · Aug 2, 2021

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

Yes, that's almost certainly true. But the potential for abuse is there; such things have happened in the past; and practices like this do exacerbate the notoriously low pay in creative industries.

So, just as it's reasonable for a company to run a contest under rules that legally protect its own butt, it's also reasonable for creators to expect legal protection for their butts; ie reliable, transparent assurances for fair compensation and rights. "Just trust us" isn't enough.

Now I've got no idea what a competition run with "transparent assurances" would look like, and it seems no one else does either. But asking for a change it is not unreasonable.

LordEntrails · Aug 2, 2021

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

Says who? The are saying the retain rights to do with it what they want in the future. Sure, they may not want to do that now, but in a year or they could turn around and sell a product based upon the rights the contest gave them over a bunch of art.

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

Don't retain the rights to any of the art outside of publishing the works in the display of the contest itself? Only retain rights for those that win?

HomegrownHydra said:
1) The contest isn't about accumulating art to be sold later.

Says you, says them right now, but the rights they wanted would have given them the ability to change their minds and do so later.

HomegrownHydra said:
People who take part in a pie baking contest at a county fair don't get paid for their ingredients and effort.

But neither are they required to submit the recipe and give the means for the contest to replicate their pies at will for virtually no cost.

HomegrownHydra said:
People can decide if they agree to that or not before they enter.

Now that I agree with. I don't think the contest was done well, but it doesn't mean that people should have been able to enter it if they wanted. IMO it was a contest that allowed two parties to enter into an agreement, if they chose to. I mean if I want to run a house painting contest to paint my house and people volunteer their time and paint to do so...

HomegrownHydra · Aug 2, 2021

Hussar said:
Seriously? That's the takeaway? You flat out admit that the point you were making doesn't apply since no one is giving up any rights whatsoever when entering a WotC contest or submitting material to WotC, but, then you're going stand pat on the tone policing because you don't like the comparison between different kinds of exploitation?

Ok, you are 100% correct. Exploitation through companies getting thousands of hours of free labour by leveraging their market position is totally different from companies getting thousands of hours of cheap labour by leveraging the poverty of the exploited. There, you're right. Totally different. Complete night and day.

Now, can we actually get back to the topic at hand?

No, I am not admitting my point doesn't apply, the point I was making was that the difference between "good" and "bad" is often a matter of degree, not kind. Giving someone a cool glass of water and dumping boiling water on them are not morally the same thing. Having a child stand in a corner for 5 minutes may be considered an acceptable form of discipline while having them stand in a dark closet for hours is clearly abuse so conflating them is absolutely wrong. I am rejecting the notion that doing a contest where people aren't paid for their submissions is meaningfully similar to using child labor and sweatshops. That is the argument being used in this thread so my point is directly relevant.

HomegrownHydra · Aug 2, 2021

Hussar said:
Seriously? That's the takeaway? You flat out admit that the point you were making doesn't apply since no one is giving up any rights whatsoever when entering a WotC contest or submitting material to WotC, but, then you're going stand pat on the tone policing because you don't like the comparison between different kinds of exploitation?

Ok, you are 100% correct. Exploitation through companies getting thousands of hours of free labour by leveraging their market position is totally different from companies getting thousands of hours of cheap labour by leveraging the poverty of the exploited. There, you're right. Totally different. Complete night and day.

Now, can we actually get back to the topic at hand?

To be clear, I am not "tone policing". What I am asking for is for people to put forward actual, concrete examples of how a contest like this can be done that addresses the legal issues that have been raised. People have claimed that there easy workarounds and thousands of ways to do these types of contests in ethical ways, but no one has actually provided such an example.

HomegrownHydra · Aug 2, 2021

J.Quondam said:
Yes, that's almost certainly true. But the potential for abuse is there; such things have happened in the past; and practices like this do exacerbate the notoriously low pay in creative industries.

So, just as it's reasonable for a company to run a contest under rules that legally protect its own butt, it's also reasonable for creators to expect legal protection for their butts; ie reliable, transparent assurances for fair compensation and rights. "Just trust us" isn't enough.

Now I've got no idea what a competition run with "transparent assurances" would look like, and it seems no one else does either. But asking for a change it is not unreasonable.

I have zero problem with people asking for change, I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I'm sympathetic to the issues raised, I'm just trying to learn what the reasonable solution would look like.

Hussar · Aug 2, 2021

HomegrownHydra said:
No, I am not admitting my point doesn't apply, the point I was making was that the difference between "good" and "bad" is often a matter of degree, not kind. Giving someone a cool glass of water and dumping boiling water on them are not morally the same thing. Having a child stand in a corner for 5 minutes may be considered an acceptable form of discipline while having them stand in a dark closet for hours is clearly abuse so conflating them is absolutely wrong. I am rejecting the notion that doing a contest where people aren't paid for their submissions is meaningfully similar to using child labor and sweatshops. That is the argument being used in this thread so my point is directly relevant.

I believe the "child labour" thing was brought up by exactly one poster. Who hasn't, AFAIR posted anything since. It's not like it's even remotely central or even pertinent to the discussion at hand.

Yet, now, we have to spend post after post discussing it because you object to a comparison that virtually no one is making.

I suggest you look up the definition of tone policing and can we please get back to the actual issue instead of standing about the water cooler mentally flagellating the point that doesn't matter?

Hussar · Aug 2, 2021

HomegrownHydra said:
Have zero problem with people asking for change, I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I'm sympathetic to the issues raised, I'm just trying to learn what the reasonable solution would look like.

Asked and answered.

1. Don't run competitions that ask artists to give up rights to products you may or may not sell in the future.

2. Don't run competitions that ask artists to give up rights.

3. The competition runner gets the right to display the art but no publication rights.

4. The competition runner gets the rights to the winner(s) but all other artists retain full rights.

Yes, in every one of these cases it means that the onus is on the competition runner to check in the future that they are not inadvertently copying someone's submission. That's the cost of running a contest where you are asking for thousands of hours of free labour. I don't really have a lot of sympathy for the contest runner here.

These solutions have already been suggested and I'm sure there are others.

HomegrownHydra · Aug 2, 2021

LordEntrails said:
Says who? The are saying the retain rights to do with it what they want in the future. Sure, they may not want to do that now, but in a year or they could turn around and sell a product based upon the rights the contest gave them over a bunch of art.

Wizbang and Snarf have explained extremely well the legal rationale for why DnDBeyond would claim those rights, and I find those explanations to be persuasive. You don't. We'll have to agree to disagree on this because neither of us knows what exactly their plans are for the losing submissions.

LordEntrails said:
Don't retain the rights to any of the art outside of publishing the works in the display of the contest itself? Only retain rights for those that win?

It's the people who don't win the contest who might possibly sue so this doesn't resolve the legal issue.

LordEntrails said:
But neither are they required to submit the recipe and give the means for the contest to replicate their pies at will for virtually no cost.

The specific sentence you're quoting here was in response to a specific question by Hussar asking why the losing contestants shouldn't be paid. It was only dealing with that specific question.

LordEntrails said:
Now that I agree with. I don't think the contest was done well, but it doesn't mean that people should have been able to enter it if they wanted. IMO it was a contest that allowed two parties to enter into an agreement, if they chose to. I mean if I want to run a house painting contest to paint my house and people volunteer their time and paint to do so...

I'm very open to this perspective.

D&D 5E D&D Beyond Cancels Competition

PsyzhranV2

Hero

Hussar

Legend

J.Quondam

CR 1/8

LordEntrails

Hero

HomegrownHydra

Adventurer

HomegrownHydra

Adventurer

HomegrownHydra

Adventurer

Hussar

Legend

Hussar

Legend

HomegrownHydra

Adventurer

Similar Threads

Related Articles