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).

 

[Lanefan]

In this specific case, I think you misunderstand the way copyright applies to art Hussar. You can copyright a specific illustration but you can’t copyright a concept or a style. So in this case you can’t accidentally copy someone’s work.

If you draw a dragon biting it’s tail you can copyright that specific image. But I can also draw a dragon biting it’s tail which is also protected for me but not the concept or the style behind it. Someone would need to copy the exact same ring token image to fall afoul of the copyright rules.

If an entrant in any competition fraudulently submits work ...

@Hussar 's not talking about fraud (I don't think). Fraud requires malice aforethought, and is a different issue.

He's talking about accidents or coincidences, where someone's image looks strikingly like someone else's - same concept, same colour scheme, same proportions, etc., etc. - due to sheer luck.

An entrant doesn't usually have the resources to do a full search and IMO shouldn't be expected to. A very small company or startup might not have the resources either, but a larger one (in theory) would.

 

[Older Beholder]

Just out of interest, (hopefully not too off topic)

There was an example earlier in the year with a Magic the Gathering card that was alleged to feature a stolen image, I believe they cut ties with the freelance artist when it was pointed out.

 

[Hussar]

In this specific case, I think you misunderstand the way copyright applies to art Hussar. You can copyright a specific illustration but you can’t copyright a concept or a style. So in this case you can’t accidentally copy someone’s work.

So, you're telling me that it's absolutely impossible to accidentally copy a frame? There is zero chance that two people could independently come up with very similar frames, so similar in fact that it could potentially draw a lawsuit? That could never, ever happen?

If you draw a dragon biting it’s tail you can copyright that specific image. But I can also draw a dragon biting it’s tail which is also protected for me but not the concept or the style behind it. Someone would need to copy the exact same ring token image to fall afoul of the copyright rules.

I don't think that's quite true. If it were, then there is zero reason for companies to get the rights to the art. After all, from what you're saying, it's virtually impossible to copy someone else's art accidentally, so, why do I need to rights to the art pieces I'm not using? Why do I need protection? After all, if it's never possible to accidentally copy someone else's art, then there should be no problems right? You don't need to take the rights away from the artists you don't use because they could never sue you.

Somehow I don't think that's right.

If an entrant in any competition fraudulently submits work not their own then the competition holder might need to withdraw the work if requested by the true owner, but the company hasn’t really lost anything. Nor would they be blamed in the court of public option because of a fraudulent entrant. They would withdraw the prize, the runner up wins. Simple.

Fraud by entrants is very rare. Now in other creative concepts where something other than just an illustration is entered, for instance the DM Contest or the 2014 setting competition then there is more risk.

Sigh. Third time, and this time with feeling. I'm not talking about fraud, never brought up fraud and SPECIFICALLY stated that I wasn't talking about fraud. Can we please leave this alone?

 

[FrogReaver]

In this specific case, I think you misunderstand the way copyright applies to art Hussar. You can copyright a specific illustration but you can’t copyright a concept or a style. So in this case you can’t accidentally copy someone’s work.

If you draw a dragon biting it’s tail you can copyright that specific image. But I can also draw a dragon biting it’s tail which is also protected for me but not the concept or the style behind it. Someone would need to copy the exact same ring token image to fall afoul of the copyright rules.

If an entrant in any competition fraudulently submits work not their own then the competition holder might need to withdraw the work if requested by the true owner, but the company hasn’t really lost anything. Nor would they be blamed in the court of public option because of a fraudulent entrant. They would withdraw the prize, the runner up wins. Simple.

Fraud by entrants is very rare. Now in other creative concepts where something other than just an illustration is entered, for instance the DM Contest or the 2014 setting competition then there is more risk.

If this is true then the whole argument about the company needing protection from being sued for using similar art is undermined. There’s now no reason they need the rights to non winning art

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

But, it's also the easiest to nip in the bud. You keep the artwork, do a quick MS Photo search and poof, none of the new art that you are using copies the old art from the contest. Pretty simple.

I think you are overestimating how precise image searches actually are. For something like the D&D beyond character frames you're going to get loads and loads of "similar" matches for any frame since they're all basically donuts with some embellishment.

 

[Chaosmancer]

• Generally speaking, if someone feels something is exploitative they don't participate. If Joe Blow freely chose to participate, who are we to tell him he is being 'exploited' or 'preyed upon' or whatever?

There is a long history of people being exploited and preyed upon, but that somehow being okay because "they always had a choice". As a general statement, we as a society have a responsibility to stand up to these practices. Whether it is Pay Day loans, sketchy foods packaging, or mattress stuffing, simply saying "well, if they don't want to be exploited, they shouldn't participate" is something that we as societies have been pushing back on. Because no one should be preyed upon, and no one should get away with that.

Again, as a general statement.

• The real issue for artwork is deeper. I think the deeper issue with art is that people in general are creative and as such will produce art and other creative works whether they get paid for it or not. Many will share those works whether they get paid for them or not. As such that creative nudge that allows us to create and enjoy art is the same reason that so many find it difficult to make a living off art. Also, in the digital age everyone can be an artist and can easily display their works for the whole world to see. Heck, they can even sale the same exact work multiple times. That makes for far too much competition and ease of access. Competition and ease of access drives down prices, except for the top 1% or so, where ease of access actually helps them drive their prices higher as ease of access helps expand their customer base. Anyways, the point is that becoming a professional artist is harder than ever in many ways. The previous point plays into the next one. It's in the paid artists benefit to push for amateur unpaid artists of any skill level to stop offering their works for no/trivial compensation. It's essentially less competition and less exposure for possible competitors. To me that makes the motivations selfish and not altruistic. IMO driving up prices via limiting competition is exactly the kind of immoral capitalistic behavior that gets despised when corporations do it. Ultimately, I think it's more human nature than corporations that cause the difficulty so many creative people experience in pursing a living based on their creativeness.

Artists have long, long struggled to make a living from their art. The term "starving artist" exists for a reason. Unless they were independently wealthy, most artists from before the 1950's or 1960's were not paid well for their work. Comic Book Artists weren't even considered artists, after all, their work was mass printed in magazines and sold to children, it wasn't worth anything. Or so they were told. Now some of that same art can sell for thousands of dollars.

I reject the idea that artists trying to say "hey, our work is valuable and should be treated as such" is selfishness only meant to drive up their own prices. Not when the weight of history and reality is skewed so heavily towards artists being consistently undervalued.

 

[Scott Christian]

Stuff that will probably never happen will be shows like Norther Exposure

A little off topic, but I have never met an RPG player that grew up during that time period that did not like that show. Something about the themes, the characterization, and dialogue that just made it special.

 

[FrogReaver]

There is a long history of people being exploited and preyed upon, but that somehow being okay because "they always had a choice". As a general statement, we as a society have a responsibility to stand up to these practices. Whether it is Pay Day loans, sketchy foods packaging, or mattress stuffing, simply saying "well, if they don't want to be exploited, they shouldn't participate" is something that we as societies have been pushing back on. Because no one should be preyed upon, and no one should get away with that.

Would you willingly participate in activities that exploit you? Of course not. The only people that would are the coerced or mentally ill.

I fully agree we need to combat exploitative practices. It’s just the things you call exploitative really aren’t.

Again, as a general statement.




Artists have long, long struggled to make a living from their art. The term "starving artist" exists for a reason. Unless they were independently wealthy, most artists from before the 1950's or 1960's were not paid well for their work. Comic Book Artists weren't even considered artists, after all, their work was mass printed in magazines and sold to children, it wasn't worth anything. Or so they were told. Now some of that same art can sell for thousands of dollars.

I reject the idea that artists trying to say "hey, our work is valuable and should be treated as such" is selfishness only meant to drive up their own prices. Not when the weight of history and reality is skewed so heavily towards artists being consistently undervalued.

Being wronged in the past doesn’t mean one gets a free pass to do wrong today. And make no mistake, an attempt to drive up prices by eliminating competition is exactly what is being advocated for.

I mean i get it - competing against a bunch of people that value their own artwork as essentially free makes it very hard to earn a living in art. But I don’t think that’s because companies in general are exploiting people. Instead it’s to do with every human being being inherently creative and wanting to share their creativity on some level and many of those people make their livings in other ways and thus don’t need to value the works produced in their art hobby as very valuable. Makes for a lot of competition. And that competition bottoms out the price.

 

[Khelon Testudo]

Ok, I gave up on page 12, so if I missed a rejoinder to this or someone else brought this up, I apologise.

But it seems to me 'competition' schemes take advantage of the same issue that causes gambling: the vast majority of humans are really poor judges of odds. So it encourages a lot of people to spend time (=money) on a very poor likely result.

So like gambling, advertising, propaganda, and other attempts to hack people's attention and goals, it needs to be done carefully, and within certain rules.

And people's attitudes to it and tolerances of it will change over time, based on how damaged people and society are by those hacks.

 

[TheSword]

So, you're telling me that it's absolutely impossible to accidentally copy a frame? There is zero chance that two people could independently come up with very similar frames, so similar in fact that it could potentially draw a lawsuit? That could never, ever happen?



I don't think that's quite true. If it were, then there is zero reason for companies to get the rights to the art. After all, from what you're saying, it's virtually impossible to copy someone else's art accidentally, so, why do I need to rights to the art pieces I'm not using? Why do I need protection? After all, if it's never possible to accidentally copy someone else's art, then there should be no problems right? You don't need to take the rights away from the artists you don't use because they could never sue you.

Somehow I don't think that's right.

I’m saying that drawing a picture that is like another picture is not in breach. You have to reproduce the actual image or part of it. Me copying and pasting the fire giant on the front of the PhB is an issue. Me drawing a fire giant in that style is not. Never say never but it is highly unlikely to reproduce someone’s artwork by accident, unless the image is very simple.

There are lots of different types of creative submission. Not all are as clear cut. I was just making the point that the whole image library search was a rabbit hole that has little to do with the matter at hand.