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).

 

[Hussar]

lol. I was 10 years old, your guess is as good as mine. Perhaps in some archive somewhere a newspaper with fine print will say Alton Towers had the right to use my poem. I wouldn’t be surprised if it did.

Im not sure it is apples and oranges Hussar. The SRD could be just as exploitative if WOC didn’t follow the principle of ‘You use it you remunerate for it’.

I'm sorry, I don't know how to parse "You use it you renumerate for it". Can you please clarify? How is it exploitative for WotC to provide a license for others to use WotC's IP and profit from it? How could WotC manipulate that to gain any profit? Remember, the WotC setting contest still followed the SRD. It allowed contestants to enter the contest using WotC IP. The contestants never owned the settings they were pitching outright the second they started using WotC IP.

So, no, it's completely different.

As has been said many many many times on the issue. If the right isn’t taken to publish, but merely to protect yourself, or if they are free to publish elsewhere then you haven’t taken something of value away.

It doesn't matter what D&D Beyond is doing with the rights. The simple fact that they HAVE the rights devalues the work. After all, I cannot then sell the rights to my work to some VTT to use for their frames because that VTT would never buy without having exclusive rights. And, I'm pretty sure that the art used by every virtual tabletop that isn't licensed from someone else (like Monster Manual art for example) is owned 100% by the VTT company.

Im not going keep this game of tennis up with you Hussar. There’s no prize money at the end of it. I’m not going to keep batting the same ‘taking rights away’ ball back across the net to you.

I'd agree if you actually responded to the issues. But, you keep dodging them and trying to make them about other stuff. "WEll, whatabout WOtC!?!?!?! They run contests TOOOO!! See, the big bad mob isn't shutting down their contests!! Why are they picking on poor D&DB?"

Well, because D&D Beyond has created a contest that is exploitative and follows pretty much the same exploitative practices that the industry has been endorsing for decades. The difference is now, people aren't quite as cavalier about screwing over people and actually believe in things like fair pay for work.

 

[Hussar]

lol. I was 10 years old, your guess is as good as mine. Perhaps in some archive somewhere a newspaper with fine print will say Alton Towers had the right to use my poem. I wouldn’t be surprised if it did.

You're saying that Alton Towers entered into a legal contract with a minor without their parent's consent? And you think that's acceptable?

 

[TheSword]

You're saying that Alton Towers entered into a legal contract with a minor without their parent's consent? And you think that's acceptable?

I think it’s hysterically funny. You haven’t read the poem.
Sturgeons Law doesn’t even come close.

I suspect they would have had my parents consent when they submitted it.

I would also be surprised if they didn’t have some form of consent when they created a collage wall at the hotel with the winning works on it. Who needs wallpaper when you can employ child labor?

Though this is a very strange rabbit hole you’re choosing to dive down.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I'm just gonna interject and as a complete aside - I really like the art on the competition banner in the OP. Good stuff!

 

[Hussar]

I think it’s hysterically funny. You haven’t read the poem.
Sturgeons Law doesn’t even come close.

I suspect they would have had my parents consent when they submitted it.

I would also be surprised if they didn’t have some form of consent when they created a collage wall at the hotel with the winning works on it. Who needs wallpaper when you can employ child labor?

Though this is a very strange rabbit hole you’re choosing to dive down.

Yeah, you're not even bothering to read what I'm writing.

We're done. Feel free to have the last word.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

Some bad things have happened does not equate to "this is an instance of a bad thing." Has D&D beyond done this before and then used the submissions without paying, only to do it again this time when the artists asked for money? If not, it doesn't equate to what happened with the Power Rangers. Did the artists for this contest contract with D&D Beyond for money only to be swindled out of it? If not, then it does not equate to what happened with Forest Gump.

Basically you're looking at something that might, possibly, maybe be something bad and just assuming that it is bad.

You put way too much faith in capitalists. The precedent itself is dangerous.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

Also I still find it absolutely hilarious (read: infuriating) that there's a whole bunch of people who don't know squat about the modern digital art market that "Actually, spec work is just fine, corporations are good actually."

 

[Vaalingrade]

You put way too much faith in capitalists. The precedent itself is dangerous.

So many empty suits are reading this thread with steepled fingers going 'Good. Good."

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Also I still find it absolutely hilarious (read: infuriating) that there's a whole bunch of people who don't know squat about the modern digital art market that "Actually, spec work is just fine, corporations are good actually."

I hope people aren't thinking that. It's interesting, that depending on your perspective, you find something hilarious, while others might find it kind of sad.

For example, both Whizzbang and I (who have repeatedly posted on the need to pay creatives more- I just had a whole thread about organizing for it!) have tried to say that the issue here isn't about creative pay, it's about legal language that is required for companies to solicit creative work for competitions, especially when those companies produce creative work.

This may seem to be a small thing to you- after all, you find it hilarious that people don't seem to know much (or squat) about the "modern digital art market," whereas others might think it is bizarre that you don't seem to understand (or care to understand?) why certain language is inserted for legal reasons.

To give you a basic example- if you look at the fine print of most nationwide (sometimes with certain exemptions for some states) contest with a prize run by a company, it will always have a disclaimer saying you don't need to buy the company's products, or anything, in order to enter- this has a long history so that companies can avoid running afoul of certain state gambling laws as well as federal law; after all, if you have to purchase something to win a prize, you're running a lottery. Now, a person might say, "That's stupid. That's just so stupid. It's not like anyone ever does that." And yet, you kinda have to. If you want to run the contest.

As has been explained at length, there is a specific reason for the inclusion of this language; companies don't want to get sued. Because they do. All the time. This isn't just about pre-clearing the winners, it's more so that they don't face uncapped liability down the road.

"But wait," you say. What about @Hussar 's idea- you know, just hire people to go through the submissions each time and make sure you're not copying anything?

This is approximately how that conversation would work:
Alice: Hussar in marketing would like to run a creative contest! Solicit writing/art! It will be great marketing for our company!

Carrie the CEO: Great! But wait, didn't DnD Beyond get in trouble for that? Why spend all the money setting up the contest and administering it, if we are just going to get flamed for it? It's not like we get great stuff most of the time- the modern spec art market is so cheap, let's just buy the stuff at above market rates instead. That's a lot cheaper than a contest.

Alice: No, Hussar says it will be fine, because we won't own any rights.

Carrie: Debbie, will that work?

Debbie Downer, Legal Compliance: Well, if we don't own any rights, and we don't at least have a license, then we have have strong down-side liability. I have to say no.

Alice: No, Hussar has a great idea; we will just hire people to review the submissions each time we put out a new product to make sure we aren't infringing!

Carrie: Um, so we have to pay people to review the contest submissions each time we put out a new product? That sounds ... expensive. Really expensive. But it's the right thing to do! Okay, Debbie, will that work? So we won't get sued?

Debbie: Well, no. People sue all the time. Reviewing them might help factually, but it's not a defense. We'll still have to pay for the litigation, and that's what costs the real money. The entire purpose of the language we put in is so that if someone submits something and sues us later, we don't have to spend tons of money on litigation.

Carrie: sigh Okay, let's just not run the contest.


Look, I agree with your points about pay. Creatives should be paid more. I think that the business model in the TTRPG industry is messed up (well, more that just that industry, but that's why we are here).

But I think the following things are true-
1. There are scams out there; contests that are run by fly-by-night organizations, some that require "entry fees" (ahem "processing fees" for art) or others that intend to use your art (sell it for stock photography, for example, or keep it for their own use). That is morally wrong and needs to be called out. I think @J.Quondam mentioned that this happened to him. Unfortunately, scams happen all the time and are not limited to contests. Still, watch out.

2. More responsible companies aren't soliciting art for their own use (except for the winners, which they could have gotten cheaper on spec)- but they do require protection. And here, it does get complicated. Because there are requirements and certain legal language that may work, and may not, and companies don't want the downside risk of getting sued for running a competition. Usually, the "dual license" (the artist agrees that by entering the competition, they will provide an irrevocable license to the company for X, Y, and Z) will protect both parties.

Again, I am agnostic on this issue of fan competitions in the creative sphere run by companies. Because when I think of it, I tend to think of amateurs and it being a loss-leader for the company, but a fun "event" for the fans. And they've dwindled a lot because of the downside litigation risks even with this language (because it's not just companies that suck- companies are people. We suck. We are the reason for this language, because we sue for everything in this country, unfortunately).

But maybe you're right. Maybe all contests such as this are bad! Maybe creative contests run by companies are akin to unpaid internships (which I am so against). I don't have an answer for that, and I honestly haven't thought about it much because I've always viewed them as loss leaders and harmless fun primarily for fans.

In the end, the better focus is whether you want these types of fan contests at all. Because if the demand is that companies don't protect themselves, then I think that the likely response (from legal departments and insurers) is that they don't run them.

IMO, YMMV, etc.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I hope people aren't thinking that. It's interesting, that depending on your perspective, you find something hilarious, while others might find it kind of sad.

For example, both Whizzbang and I (who have repeatedly posted on the need to pay creatives more- I just had a whole thread about organizing for it!) have tried to say that the issue here isn't about creative pay, it's about legal language that is required for companies to solicit creative work for competitions, especially when those companies produce creative work.

There are legal wordings for this that aren't predatory scumbaggery. The addition of 'for the purposes of the contest' would have avoided all this, but the boilerplate for this is all about 'let's make sure to cover ourselves in case we decide to steal this stuff'. Might not and probably wasn't DDB's intention, but that's the actual point of this particular wording.