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).

 

[Maxperson]

In this case, the prizes were nowhere worth the time and labour reauired of an entry.

That's false as a general statement. "Worth" is subjective and to anyone who entered, it was in fact worth the time and labor necessary. You personally think it's not worth it. So you wouldn't have entered the contest. Person Y over there did think it was worth it, so he did.

if you complained, you kept him from winning a contest that he deemed was worth it. And you did it over something you weren't even entitled to. Contests don't owe you a prize that you think is worth it.

This entire method of sourcing artwork (or in other cases, written work) from the community is predatory in and of itself.

Something up front and out in the open cannot be predatory. Lending with lots of fees and costs out in the open is not predatory. Lending with hidden fees and costs, designed to cause someone to pay a lot more than they thought, is predatory.

Well, the contest was cancelled anyhow, and I wonder how many submissions DNDBeyond actually got before it was shuttered. Good to hear that most people know the value of their own work.

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.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Your mistake was in assuming that the industry standard isn't in and of itself predatory. But that's capitalism for you.

No, in this case, these types of contests aren't predatory. That isn't what that word means. (I'm not saying the industry can't be predatory, but in this case it's not the right word). Something that can be questionable morality wise (which is entirely subjective) doesn't mean it's predatory. DDB isn't preying on anyone in this contest. The terms were clear and up front, and they even let artists keep copyright.

 

[ReshiIRE]

It's pretty simple why this is a poor idea and predatory. It is essentially praying on artists who may want to make a living and get a bit more exposure in a community through public recognition of their art by causing a very high risk for a potential or non existant reward - losing control of their art without gaining anything in return, making them less likely to be successful without risking all independence.

And it's effects go beyond any individual artist that enters. It also affects artists that do not enter by devaluing art that does not meet some 'competition' spec or vote, which in turn could lead to certain art-styles or ideas being unviable for actually making art as a living, and allows companies to more easily control art to suit their arbritrary tastes. That is the biggest problem - things like these do not exist in a vacuum.

There is already a significant issue today where art is devalued and artists are exploited, by not being paid properly or recognised for their art. Competitions like these add to the problem, so I am glad this one has been cancelled.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The thing about WOTC claiming to retain the rights to that artwork once submitted is...they have never in the history of the company USED the work of those who don't win the contest. And they never would use it. They never even look at it again, beyond that contest.

The reason they claim that right is so that, if some day their own artists happen to create something similar to something you submitted one time, you cannot sue them over that.

That's why it's done this way. Not so they can swipe your stuff without paying for it - but so they have a solid defense against anyone in the future suing them for creating something very similar to what was submitted in a contest. Because even if that similar thing is created purely by coincidence, people will sue over it if they had submitted something similar before.

This is also why you don't submit surprise scripts in Hollywood and have to go through some sort of agency go-between. So that the ability to avoid a future lawsuit over creating something similar is avoided.

That is true. But unfortunately the D&D Beyond quote was (as @Maxperson quoted above): "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."

Had they not suggested they would possibly use the designs in the future (with no indication that they would compensate the artist if they did), then perhaps the blowback would not have been as bad. They could have said that D&D Beyond retains the right to the art but it would not be used without due compensation if it was. I dunno if that would have changed things, but at least it would have looked a bit more amenable to people I suspect.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

Something up front and out in the open cannot be predatory. Lending with lots of fees and costs out in the open is not predatory. Lending with hidden fees and costs, designed to cause someone to pay a lot more than they thought, is predatory.

Well, then I'm just gonna say that you and I have very different definitions of "predatory". To me, something can be out in the open and still be predatory. Beyond that, well I guess the best explanation of my views on this matter and how artists are treated in our current economy would be to ask you if this symbol means anything to you:

 

[BookTenTiger]

if you complained, you kept him from winning a contest that he deemed was worth it. And you did it over something you weren't even entitled to. Contests don't owe you a prize that you think is worth it.

You use this word "complained" a lot.

Who complained? Where in DDB's statement does it say complain?

Is negative feedback the same as complaining?

 

[Mistwell]

That is true. But unfortunately the D&D Beyond quote was (as @Maxperson quoted above): "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."

Had they not suggested they would possibly use the designs in the future (with no indication that they would compensate the artist if they did), then perhaps the blowback would not be as bad. They could say that D&D Beyond retains the art but it will not be used without due compensation if it is. I dunno if that would have changed things, but at least it would have looked a bit more amenable to people I suspect.

I think an agreement that they have no liability if they ever publish something similar to what was submitted, and agree to hold them harmless from any lawsuits over same, would probably accomplish the same goal. Then sure, if they use the exact artwork you submitted they should agree in advance to pay you some going market rate for that publication.

 

[Maxperson]

You use this word "complained" a lot.

Who complained? Where in DDB's statement does it say complain?

Is negative feedback the same as complaining?

Yes.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Yes.

Wow!

 

[PsyzhranV2]

Yes.

So we can't criticize anything ever?