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).

 

[TheSword]

Because asking thousands of people to do free work for you IS screwing people over. That's the point that keeps getting glossed over. DDB is getting thousands (collectively) of hours of free labour. Oh, sorry, they giving away inventory to a tiny, tiny fraction of the people who do the work.

Meanwhile, artists who are trying to make a living are sidelined and can't get work because a company is leveraging it's market position to gain free labor and free advertising. If you want someone to make art for your product, HIRE AN ARTIST. Is it really that complicated?

How is this even an argument? No, what they are doing is not justifiable. It's perpetuating the systemic exploitation of people who lack the power or the position to do anything about it and, to top it off, those doing the exploiting aren't even being criticised for it. They're being applauded. :wow:

Ok. It’s good to understand your position. All competitions that require some kind of creative effort are wrong without guaranteed pay out (which stops it being a competition). Fine. You’ve made that clear.

I think that’s out of whack with most of real life but you’re entitled to your opinion.

Damn Alton Towers for running that creative writing competition when I was 10. I should have held out for 5p per word up front rather than a two day free trip to a theme park I never could have afforded. Damn Radio Stoke for reading my book review of the BFG why didn’t I get a nice lump of cash up front? Damn redbull for letting me canoe with a GB athlete at the national center in Nottingham. I should have demanded a share of the marketing revenues for my pithy one liner!

 

[Morrus]

Damn Alton Towers for running that creative writing competition when I was 10. I should have held out for 5p per word up front rather than a two day free trip to a theme park I never could have afforded. Damn Radio Stoke for reading my book review of the BFG why didn’t I get a nice lump of cash up front? Damn redbull for letting me canoe with a GB athlete at the national center in Nottingham. I should have demanded a share of the marketing revenues for my pithy one liner!

In everyone of those examples you got paid.

 

[TheSword]

In everyone of those examples you got paid.

And in the dozens of other competitions i entered I didn’t. Unfortunately Hussars suggestion (and I think your’s too) is that these competitions are wrong. No competition no prize.

I think about all those tennis players that didn’t make it to the Wimbledon final 32 and went home empty handed. Pure exploitation?

 

[Morrus]

I think about all those tennis players that didn’t make it to the Wimbledon final 32 and went home empty handed. Pure exploitation?

But that's not the argument. Nobody says competitions are bad. They’re saying you should pay for work you use.

 

[Hussar]

And in the dozens of other competitions i entered I didn’t. Unfortunately Hussars suggestion (and I think your’s too) is that these competitions are wrong. No competition no prize.

I think about all those tennis players that didn’t make it to the Wimbledon final 32 and went home empty handed. Pure exploitation?

I was unaware that those tennis players that played at Wimbledon were unpaid amateurs.

And, in those competitions you entered, did you sign away any rights? Who owns the rights to your work?

 

[Norton]

Exposure models do favor the larger, more powerful entities, but it can't be ignored that those entities have done the work of existing and accept a lot of the risk to create the opportunity.

It's a sensitive time now for artists who do get ripped off and/or have their work and time undervalued and it feels a little like those completely understandable grievances are spilling over into a contest run by a company trusted in the community that should—among other things—know how to better explain the language it's using to protect itself.

It's never all that simple, but artists appear to be reacting less to an actual wrongdoing here and more to the contest's tone deaf nature.

 

[TheSword]

I was unaware that those tennis players that played at Wimbledon were unpaid amateurs.

And, in those competitions you entered, did you sign away any rights? Who owns the rights to your work?

They are unpaid yes. They make their money from prizes, which pay for the next twelve months. Lots of professional sports operate that way. Particularly Tennis.

I gave my creative work to the organizers yes. However they only used the winning entries. So similar to DDB in that regard, as far as we know.

But that's not the argument. Nobody says competitions are bad. They’re saying you should pay for work you use.

With all due respect. And it is with respect based on your experience. Hussar is saying competitions are bad per se and producing work for a competition host should be paid irrespective of whether they use it.

I do agree with you, fair use requires fair remuneration. Otherwise the company is lousy. I just don’t think that the act of submitting the work means the company benefits from the simple having the right to use it, if they never actually use it. Particularly where the writer also has the right to publish it as in the case of DDB competition.

You use it, you pay for it. Fair enough. But the corollary of that is if you don’t use it, and it’s a competition entry, you shouldn’t need to pay for it.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

The contest may be silly, sure, but the underlying principles are rather serious.

Perhaps, in fact, a "silly" contest is a good place to haul those principles out into the light and expose them, as doing so isn't causing that much damage to the company running the contest and yet gives a fine opportunity to point out how awful those principles are so other more serious companies might try to find a better way.

All the problems with the principles go away when you stop treating contests like this as work and think of them as entertainment instead.

People seem to be under the miconception that big companies run art contests to generate art, when the actual purpose is to generate Fan Engagement. Every minute someone spends working on an entry ties them mentally closer to the Brand, even if the entry is artistically hopeless and stands no chance of winning. If the winning entry is good enough to include in a Product then that's merely a bonus.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

I'm not sure where the idea that WotC owns the Campaign Setting Contest entries comes from, three of the semi-finalist submissions were published by other companies. WotC only bought the rights to the three finalist, for $20,000 each.

If you think WotC should have given everyone who submitted a one page pitch some compensation, do you also think Dragon magazine should have compensated everyone who sent in a failed article proposal?

 

[MGibster]

If you think WotC should have given everyone who submitted a one page pitch some compensation, do you also think Dragon magazine should have compensated everyone who sent in a failed article proposal?

Is anyone making that argument? The setting competition didn't seem at all exploitative at the time because throughout the process the author(s) retained ownership until WotC actually purchased it from them. If my setting idea was rejected by WotC they did not retain the rights to it to do with what they wish in the future. If DDB has set up their contest so that they didn't have the right to publish entries in perpetuity I don't think this thread would be nearly so long.