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).

 

[Xetheral]

I would think so! I mean, in 2019, there were over 26,000 contract cases filed in federal court alone. Federal courts have fewer contract cases than state courts. The first state I looked up had over 50,000 pure contract cases filed in 2019 (not including specialized contractual ones, like landlord/tenant or contract involving real property). That's one state.

So, yeah. In my opinion, contracts get tested a lot, and saying otherwise is ... not correct.

Anyway, that's pretty far afield from my original point- which is that this language is inserted for a specific reason, not just "to screw over artists," and that it is helpful to understand why it is there before getting all "twirling mustache capitalist" on it.

But hey, I've said what I needed to. The issues with running contests and sweepstakes are very well known. It's not easy (if you want to do it right). The rest of this is just noise, and a lot of posturing, and "my morals can beat up ur lawyer" stuff. It's all good.

Bold emphasis added. I agree that contracts get tested in court a lot. It does not follow that most boilerplate language is tested, nor does it follow that most boilerplate language is created in response to specific case law.

Note that of all the contract cases filed, only a comparatively small number will go to trial, and only a small amount of contract text (if any) will be at issue in each case that does go to trial. Only the text at issue in a case that goes to trial is tested in court, and that testing comes at great expense.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Bold emphasis added. I agree that contracts get tested in court a lot. It does not follow that most boilerplate language is tested, nor does it follow that most boilerplate language is created in response to specific case law.

Note that of all the contract cases filed, only a comparatively small number will go to trial, and only a small amount of contract text (if any) will be at issue in each case that does go to trial. Only the text at issue in a case that goes to trial is tested in court, and that testing comes at great expense.

Two things-

First, I honestly have no idea what you are talking about now. Yes, the number of cases that result in trial court and appellate court holdings is less than the millions of contracts cases each year, but it is still quite sizeable. Moreover, when you add in the fact that numerous publications survey the cases and publish findings about the state of contract law ... And this is after changing what you said! Your first claim (that I responded to) was this:
"We apparently have wildly different perceptions of how comprehensive extant case law is concerning contract language."

We do have wildly different perceptions! Because on any given contractual issue, it is trivial to find case law. You can usually get a good, what, 50+ years of cases in a given jurisdiction*, and the chances that your contractual issue is unique because of a lack of "comprehensive extant case law" is usually pretty laughable. IMO. Given that contracts are probably the single most litigated issue in civil litigation**, AND the primary focus of most transactional attorneys. But hey, maybe you're on to something. Maybe every time something an attorney writes something, they just throw up their hands because, hey, "It's all new to us. It's not like court have ever decided contract cases before! Most people say that the law is about stability and precedent and not taking risks ... but it's really just a guessing game with no guiderails. WOO HOO!"

I'm being a little light, but c'mon. That's silly. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Look, you want to do something good, help people draft the language. There's all sorts of resources out there, because contests and sweepstakes are a minefield of conflicting state and federal laws, along with the possibility of liability. I have trouble seeing it, but that might be because I have a wildly different perception of how the law works than you do, and I am clearly and obviously an idiot without the ability to understand the fine distinctions you are making.

Wouldn't be the first time!

*Sure, you can always go Hadley, but at a certain point you want something current, right?
EDIT - **Maybe. If you combine all the contractual civil issues it would be; but "pure contract" loses out to "ambulance chasing." I think. Not concerned enough to actually look it up.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I expect that the context of a contest is largely irrelevant.

From what I have read, legally speaking, there was absolutely no issue with the contest terms. There's a bit of a tendency for legal duffers to conflate how they want things to work with how the law has, is, and/or should be interpreted, which muddies the waters a lot.

I would say that the more a contract is outside the norm of a standard transaction the more…
…boilerplate is unlikely to reflect all the possible issues that may arise;
…a lawyer, even an experienced lawyer, is likely to fail to consider possible consequences of the wording chosen;
…the less likely any boilerplate that exists will have been tested in court.

So, a contest in which contestants are submitting artistic works (that therefore has to deal with IP issues arising from that) is further outside the norm than either standard IP-for-hire agreements or standard contests.

I do agree with you that the terms and conditions are likely legally valid, making this more a reputation or PR than a legal issue. However, I believe it is extremely likely that the consequences of licensing the work of unsuccessful contestants wasn’t considered by D&D Beyond: no one gave much thought to the consequences of requiring contestants to license their submissions for no pay.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Or, as was said at the start of the thread, many contests like this have been determined to be bad by the artistic community, and that was brought to the attention of DDB and they agreed that the wording and usage of their contest was problematic.

Then, other people on the internet started complaining because amateur artists who might not know better than to get involved in contests designed this way didn't get the chance to compete, because people with that knowledge spoke out. Because supposedly being involved in something that has been shown to be harmful to the community of professional artists for a chance that it might lead to something for your career is a good thing.

Just like getting involved in a non-union TV show might be good for your new acting career... as long as you don't get killed in an accident along the way.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I would think so! I mean, in 2019, there were over 26,000 contract cases filed in federal court alone. Federal courts have fewer contract cases than state courts. The first state I looked up had over 50,000 pure contract cases filed in 2019 (not including specialized contractual ones, like landlord/tenant or contract involving real property). That's one state.

How many of those go to trial? How many of those turn on contract interpretation? How many of those deal with specific boilerplate language?

My (admittedly limited) experience is that a vanishingly few cases get to judgment. Of those, the majority of contract cases concern non-execution. For any given boilerplate clause, I doubt there is much legal analysis of its validity.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I would say that the more a contract is outside the norm of a standard transaction the more…
…boilerplate is unlikely to reflect all the possible issues that may arise;
…a lawyer, even an experienced lawyer, is likely to fair to consider possible consequences of the wording chosen;
…the less likely any boilerplate that exists will have been tested in court.

So, a contest in which contestants are submitting artistic works (that therefore has to deal with IP issues arising from that) is further outside the norm than either standard IP-for-hire agreements or standard contests.

I do agree with you that the terms and conditions are likely legally valid, making this more a reputation or PR than a legal issue. However, I believe it is extremely likely that the consequences of licensing the work of unsuccessful contestants wasn’t considered by D&D Beyond: no one gave much thought to the consequences of requiring contestants to license their submissions for no pay.

That's not true. It's a standard restriction that if you are running a contest (as opposed to a sweepstakes) and you are soliciting from contestants, you will, at a minimum, require it to be licensed. This isn't something that's "under the radar." This is pretty darn explicit.

There are all sorts of issues that need to discussed when this sort of thing is done. Is it a contest or a sweepstakes (and how do we make sure this is done correctly). Have all the stakeholders' rules been complied with (if social media is involved, there will be rules for the social media companies as well). Have you verified that you are not violating any relevant federal or state laws (deceptive advertising, etc.). Have you verified that you are in compliance with all the state guidelines and requirements for the states(s) that have eligibility for the contest? Have you verified that there has not been any new guidance from federal or state agencies on this? Have you complied with relevant privacy laws? That last one is BIG.

But wait, there's more (there's always more). Do you expect that minors will be entering the contest? Because, you know, voidable - plus there's newer federal law on that if you allow children under 13 to enter. Do you require people to warrant they they are not minors? What else- I mean, they should have to warrant its their work, because what happens if you get sued because it's not their work? For some states, there are written requirements for certain publicity- what happens if the contest winner is in one of those states and you don't have that written provision?

How big is your prize? Is it big enough to require a bond? Some states require that. Do you expect that an influencer will promote your contest- and do you have the appropriate disclaimers? Are you certain that nothing in your contest either is, or can be construed, to be discriminating against anyone in a protected class- this often comes up because of disabilities. Does your contest ensure that entrants can't sue you, or other entrants, because their entries are similar to each other (Jake totes stole my idea!). If you produce something in the future, are your protected?

And so on. Seriously, it's a minefield. But the idea that no one is giving this thought ... is not accurate.

 

[Umbran]

I would say that the more a contract is outside the norm of a standard transaction

Okay. You would say that.

I would counter that there have been thousands upon thousands of contests over say, the past century or so, with the contest organizers usually taking some or all rights to the submissions having been pretty common, perhaps even ubiquitous. So, I think you have to go a bit farther in substantiating that this transaction is particularly "outside the norm" than just asserting it.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I would say that the more a contract is outside the norm of a standard transaction the more…
…boilerplate is unlikely to reflect all the possible issues that may arise;

So one last thing.

Boilerplate. People can, and do, use it differently. My use tracks the main use:
"1. content that is made to fit many uses."

That's it. Reusable language. "Boilerplate" can be something as important as a choice of forum or arbitration or merger clause. That's all "boilerplate" but incredibly important.

No one is (or should be) creating a bespoke contract for a contest or sweepstakes; they should be using a lot of boilerplate. Not doing so would be ... problematic. In my opinion. Especially given that these contracts have been done countless times before, and have a lot of difficult issues involved.

 

[J.Quondam]

(So... As a non-lawyer, I just want to be clear: whether a case like this actually goes to trial or not, it still does mean an expense for the company, right?)

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

(So... As a non-lawyer, I just want to be clear: whether a case like this actually goes to trial or not, it still does mean an expense for the company, right?)

Massive expense.

Litigation is like deciding you want to start collecting Warhammer minis; one day you wake up, and you realize you'd have been better off saving money with a nice cocaine addiction.