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).

 

[TwoSix]

Oh, so personal autonomy isn't a thing anymore? People aren't allowed to make decisions for themselves?

People use that same argument to argue against a range of policies from a minimum wage to banning hobo fights to not allowing people to sell their own organs.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

What? It's referring explicitly to "submitted work." Work submitted to the contest.

Actually, this is pointless. You started by saying, in bold type, the difference here is that creators still own their work.* I pointed out that is true of DDB as well. You then said, well, but DDB entrants lose rights to how their work is used and distributed. I've pointed out that's true of your example as well but now you want to apply your own interpretations to their posted rules.

Okay. You go.

Suddenly got called into work becausr the doctor's office I work at has a mouse problem and for some reason they want me to handle it, so I need more time to look over the submission conditions, and also try and see if there's still the full text of the DNDBeyond contest rules still around after they pulled it so I can compare the two.

But fine. Take the W on this one for now. I hope you choke on it.

 

[Faolyn]

Why is it "icky" if it's voluntary? If you don't want to sign the rights to that particular piece away ... don't enter the contest?

Am I missing a nuance here?

You shouldn't have to sign your rights away to something you made just to enter a contest and maybe not win it. After all, you're entering a contest, not selling your work.

 

[Faolyn]

1) 99% of layman who'd enter such contest could not.

It's not even work for them, probably many have never created art before such a contest and will never do after such a contest. They not even artists in their own view. I certainly don't consider myself an athlete because I once threw some baseballs at some cans at a fair

You really think that people who would submit art to an art contest are people who haven't created art before and don't view themselves as artists? Really? Especially when you see the average quality of gaming art these days? What sort of person who's never picked up a pencil before is going to try to compete against accomplished artists?

 

[Faolyn]

So, to those who aren’t getting it.

The reason why this is unethical is because upcoming artists struggling to find work can feel this is their only way in — to work for a rich company who uses their labour without paying them.

Sure, some comfortable guy with no experience of being a struggling artist trying to pay the bills can casually say “so don’t enter”. I mean, why don’t sweatshop workers just not take that job? Just don’t take it, right?

It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the power relationships in the world. A company could easily say “if we use your work, we’ll pay you”. The cost would even be inconsequential to them. Some companies do do that.

Making a living as an artist is hard. Our industry consistently undervalues the labour of creators, and normalises exploitation.

The least we can do is pay for the work we use.

Thank you. This reminds me of the earlier days in the comic book industry, where creators had to sell the rights to their creations to companies like DC or Marvel if they wanted to get paid at all, and then saw little or nothing in the way of royalties.

 

[Faolyn]

Great! Now, how many of those would you actually hire and comission them to do artwork for you? Without that contest, how many would you actually have discovered to be great artist? My guess is none. These contests are for people to get known. The prize is good, but the chance to be known is actually worth a lot more. Especially if you present the 10 best pieces. It will attract the attention of potential customers for these artists. And coincidentally, might help young struggling artists to put butter on their bread.

You can't pay the bills with exposure.

Plus, on the internet, there's thousands of ways to get exposure without having other people claim the rights to your work.

 

[Mirtek]

Thing is, those terms are themselves exploitative; and just because people can agree to be exploited if they want to doesn't make it right.

They are exploitative if the art in question has value to you. So I can agree that a (semi-)professional artist should stay out of such a contest. Even if they can't see it, they better listen to the wisdom of their peers further down the path who learned this lesson already.

I disagree that it would be explotative toward some layman who never done art before and just want to submitd a one-time effort to this contest because they see the potential price worth this little effort. Even if the terms would be different they're unlikely to ever use their entry for anythin else and probably lose it afterwards anyway (throw away the printout, thoughtlessly delete the files in some data cleaning exercise, etc.) because it has no value to them beyond maybe winning them a price in this specific contest.

 

[Lanefan]

Oh, so personal autonomy isn't a thing anymore? People aren't allowed to make decisions for themselves?

I'm all for personal autonomy, don't get me wrong.

That said, I'm against people or corporations having the ability to knowingly and-or maliciously exploit or manipulate said autonomy for their own ends.

 

[J.Quondam]

It would be a shame if contests became a thing of the past. But maybe this snafu will just result in legal boilerplate that is a bit less thoughtlessly CYA for companies, and a bit more favorable for creators & participants.
One can dream.

 

[Minigiant]

Basically DDB could keep your art even if you lost so artists dropped out or would only offer throwaway bad art.
So DDB cancelled it.