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).

 

[Greg Benage]

I'm not angling for a ban, but how much do moderators at ENworld and similar sites earn? It's hard, often thankless work, so I'm sure the compensation is handsome.

 

[Nikosandros]

I give WotC props for admitting their "mistake" and trying to rectify it but the language in their statement made me disgusted in the society we live in today.

The contest was run by D&D Beyond. WotC had nothing to do with it.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

Sounds like they exploited a competition and should be called out by name for it.

Not sure it means competitions that aren’t exploitative should be called out. Though according to a few poster competitions are by nature exploitative. Even my year 5 poetry competition.

These contests are a form of speculative work. They are bad for artists because these contests being normalized sets a precedent of companies being able to get design work for free or for far below market cost, in the process undercutting existing creators in the market. Assuming the company isn't looking for tip-top quality, they don't have to go choosing between artists whose going rates start at $100.00 when they can just open a contest and get 1000 people willing to do it for the mere chance of $10.00. That is not good for existing artists, and for new artists it gives them a toxic impression that their art and their work is worth very little monetarily and that it is expected and right of them to work for nothing.

In effect, it's kind of like a company hiring scabs to replace striking workers. Except in this case the scabs are doing it entirely for free. This person said it better than I ever could:


Plus, even if somebody is perfectly and eagerly willing to work for free, it's still ethically better to compensate them anyways, out of your own generosity if nothing else.

 

[Norton]

In fairness, this isn't driven by a desire to screw over artists. Or to get art for free.

Agreed. It was almost certainly designed to strengthen company-customer relationships and champion the community—or if we're obliged to be the least bit cynical—give the appearance of doing so. They don't need nor want to solicit free art from the hoi polloi for so many reasons, many of which you stated.

 

[MGibster]

In fairness, this isn't driven by a desire to screw over artists. Or to get art for free.

I am 99% positive that nobody at DDB was twirling their mustache just looking for a way to screw over their customers. And while I'm not keen on the parameters of the contest, I'm not going to pretend like those who were fine with it don't have valid points. This is one of those situations where I think reasonable people can disagree.

Companies generally don't run these types of contests to get "free stuff." At all. It's not like Hasbro would be like, "Hey, let's get an entirely fan created Monster Manual by running contests!!!!" Do you know why?

I'm sure that's not the main purpose. It still bothers me that DDB claim the rights to use those works in any capacity relating to their website in perpetuity. Maybe in three years they decide, "Hey, why don't we use all these works of art in our library as options for character portraits?"

So why do it? Because there is always an ulterior motive. If you peer behind the scenes, it's always for marketing. To get contact information for customers. To build excitement and brand loyalty. The actual contest itself is almost always secondary to the company.

I figured this was mainly a marketing scheme and I don't really object to such contests.

. If this is the case, why have the onerous terms? Because lawyers, that's why. Look at any contest in which you submit something to a "real company" now, and you will find similar language. Here's the basic issue- companies don't want you to sue them. Most of these contests aren't cost-effective to begin with; add in lawsuits, and it's stupid to run them. And America runs on lawsuits.

I get that. Generally speaking, when my lawyer recommends I do something I just do it. But then a lot of companies are afraid of getting sued even when the risk is so low. Grocery stores claim they throw away food rather than give it away for fear of being sued if someone gets sick. How many people have sued a grocery store because the good they gave away made someone sick? Zero as best I can tell. I would think WotC's lawyer could just include language to the effect of, "Entrants agree not to sue Company for works in the future that bear resemblance to their entries" and be done with it. That seems a whole lot better than retaining the right to use the work indefinitely.

Finally, there is a benefit to the general public for these competitions. Yes, the vast majority of the submissions are not going to be good. But ... some will be. For many non-professionals, the first step to realizing that they are good, that they can have a career, is winning some silly competition- to get that type of confidence.

I've heard a similar line of argument for unpaid internships. I find those exploitative as well.

Conclusion- look, if companies really did use these types of competitions to get a whole bunch of art for free, I'd have a real problem with that. But that's not the reality. So long as this is something that is done sparingly, and for fun, I think that we really need to calm down.

Who needs to calm down? I'm not exactly foaming at the mouth here. In the grand scheme of things this isn't something I'm going to get into a tizzy over even if I don't think the conditions of the contest are good. I remember a similar situation a few years back when Amanda Palmer was set to go on tour almost a decade ago with the intention of using unpaid local musicians in each city as part of the act. She was met with a lot of criticism and ended up agreeing to pay them.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I've heard a similar line of argument for unpaid internships. I find those exploitative as well.

As do I- as I wrote in the other thread at length, they are a barrier to entry; not only do they exploit people for unpaid labor to begin with, they also ensure that certain high-paying jobs are only available to those who can afford to have an unpaid internship. But this isn't an unpaid internship- it's a fan contest.

Who needs to calm down? I'm not exactly foaming at the mouth here. In the grand scheme of things this isn't something I'm going to get into a tizzy over even if I don't think the conditions of the contest are good. I remember a similar situation a few years back when Amanda Palmer was set to go on tour almost a decade ago with the intention of using unpaid local musicians in each city as part of the act. She was met with a lot of criticism and ended up agreeing to pay them.

Perhaps the people who are analogizing fan contests to child labor?

Again, bad analogies are bad. If people don't want companies to run fan contests, that's totally cool. I get it. But if you think that companies are going to spend the money on these contests, spend the money and the time on lawyers to prepare it (and there a lot of rules for contests- especially if they are doing it across 50 states), and spent the time and money to vet what is usually a lot of bad stuff - and then think they aren't going to protect themselves from litigation (which is fairly common in this area- it's also why a lot of senior creatives make sure to not "encounter" fan submissions), then you haven't encountered a large company's legal department before.

 

[Greg Benage]

Again, bad analogies are bad.

Yeah, but it's only when you can stand beside your comrades against those people who want to exploit children that you really get the social-bonding endorphins flowing. That's why everything must get cranked up to 11 (even a debate about a token frame contest) and why so many fan communities (and, like, countries and stuff) seem intent on self-immolation.

 

[R_J_K75]

I remember a similar situation a few years back when Amanda Palmer was set to go on tour almost a decade ago with the intention of using unpaid local musicians in each city as part of the act. She was met with a lot of criticism and ended up agreeing to pay them.

This is garbage. Im not familiar with the situation or any of the artists involved but Im inferring that a well known artist was offering to have rather unknowns open for their concert unpaid in an effort to give them some recognition. I could be wrong but the logistics of paying each act in a different city/state with laws being what they are probably made the initial idea cumbersome.

Who needs to calm down?

I'm not making this comment towards you but I think people in general need to calm down. Myself included in the day to day things. Seems everyone is on the offensive and looking to vilify even the best of intentions these days and forcing people to apologize for things that need no apology. I just read an article about two Olympians that were in a sprint and the one behind accidentally tripped the other in the lead. Guy in the lead picked up the other and they both crossed the finish line 2nd last and last, no hard feelings. Good example I think.

 

[MGibster]

Perhaps the people who are analogizing fan contests to child labor?

If anything we should be exploiting the labor of children more than we currently are! To the acid mines of Venus with you, Timmy!

If people don't want companies to run fan contests, that's totally cool. I get it. But if you think that companies are going to spend the money on these contests, spend the money and the time on lawyers to prepare it (and there a lot of rules for contests- especially if they are doing it across 50 states), and spent the time and money to vet what is usually a lot of bad stuff - and then think they aren't going to protect themselves from litigation (which is fairly common in this area- it's also why a lot of senior creatives make sure to not "encounter" fan submissions), then you haven't encountered a large company's legal department before.

Just because that's the way things are doesn't make it right. I fully expect DDB to protect themselves but I think they can find another way to do so without claiming perpetual rights to use submitted work.

This is garbage. Im not familiar with the situation or any of the artists involved but Im inferring that a well known artist was offering to have rather unknowns open for their concert unpaid in an effort to give them some recognition. I could be wrong but the logistics of paying each act in a different city/state with laws being what they are probably made the initial idea cumbersome.

It wasn't to give them exposure it was to avoid paying them as the tour couldn't afford it. Somehow they ended up being able to afford to pay them though.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Probably a lot. Many new artists want to get their works out there and used for their portfolio. To them such a contest is not at all predatory and very worth it.

IF there is something that many new artists are willing to do, that many older and more experienced artists are not, there is a high chance there is a reason for that.

If experienced artists wouldn't enter this sort of contest, there is a reason, in their expeirence, that makes it bad for their career.