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).

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

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.

Good point. On the whole, visual artists (in America) get the least amount of protection of any of the creatives. Different states (usually California, because Hollywood and the music industry) have different levels of protection for different creatives, but visual artists (painters, photographers, computer-generated images) usually get screwed.

The one slight quibble I would have is that it's not just copyright; you can have issues with, for example, moral rights as well. Even though they aren't protected in America (or in the different states) as much as they are abroad, they can be an issue. Finally, if you have an international audience/competition, you have to be concerned about the laws that are in place to protect artists in other places, usually the EU.

 

[Umbran]

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.

That's not correct. The standard in US copyright is "substantial similarity". What counts as "substantial" gets very, very complicated.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

And you are wrong. Shockingly wrong.

Heck, I literally mentioned Pay Day loans. If you google "pay day loans" you get an entire page of options to take out a loan. if you add the word "bad" you immediately get none of those and instead get dozens of reports of how those loans are designed to trap you in a cycle of debt. Add "good" and you get a few locations, some generic bank info... then those same articles telling you why they are a terrible idea.

Do you think everyone who takes out a payday loan or gets a credit card with a high interest rate was coerced or mentally ill?

Maybe or maybe not the art contest was exploitative. A lot of artists who have a lot of knowledge about these sort of contests said it was, because it matches the pattern of similar contests. I'm defaulting to think they probably had a good reason to say so. And "well, you can't be exploited if you agree to play the game" isn't an acceptable standard, because there are dozens and hundreds of examples of this being dead wrong.

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.

No, it isn't.

 

[Vaalingrade]

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

The fact that people keep propagating this idea is part of the reason con artists and cults manage to succeed as often as they do.

You don't target the people who are vulnerable and know it, you target the people who are confident they can't be fooled by convincing themselves that it was all their idea and they're getting one over you.

 

[TheSword]

That's not correct. The standard in US copyright is "substantial similarity". What counts as "substantial" gets very, very complicated.

I’m not in the US. However I understand that even in the US independently arriving at a work is a defense. I find it highly
unlikely an artist would independently create such a substantially similar piece of work by accident. We’re talking about an illustration here, not a slogan or logo.

Though that may explain why the competition organizers prefer to get the boiler plate. The competition organizers would have been provided with an original piece by the entrant so later independent creation would be difficult to prove.

 

[FrogReaver]

The fact that people keep propagating this idea is part of the reason con artists and cults manage to succeed as often as they do.

You don't target the people who are vulnerable and know it, you target the people who are confident they can't be fooled by convincing themselves that it was all their idea and they're getting one over you.

I’d say those are substantially different things. Con artists trick you, cult leaders ease you into deference to them and dependency on them. Neither tell you what the true terms and aim is up front. I fully agree such people can exploit others because of these facts. However, in our situation the terms in question were up front. There was no deception, no coercion, no easing one into something.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

I’d say those are substantially different things. Con artists trick you, cult leaders ease you into deference to them and dependency on them. Neither tell you what the true terms and aim is up front. I fully agree such people can exploit others because of these facts. However, in our situation the terms in question were up front. There was no deception, no coercion, no easing one into something.

So are the terms for unpaid internships, or for underpaid "minimum wage" jobs. Doesn't make them right, and due to the material conditions of our current economy there's bound to be people who see them for what they are but for them is still the best choice. Which is hardly a choice at all.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I’d say those are substantially different things. Con artists trick you, cult leaders ease you into deference to them and dependency on them. Neither tell you what the true terms and aim is up front. I fully agree such people can exploit others because of these facts. However, in our situation the terms in question were up front. There was no deception, no coercion, no easing one into something.

I tell you exactly the terms because I know that most people a) don't actually read terms and conditions and b) most people don't fully understand the implications of terms and conditions and think that if it's a legal document it can't possibly be used to harm them. That's exactly how things like EULAs work/worked.

Take MLM's. I tell you exactly how the not-pyramid scheme works and how you can earn up to thousands of dollars a week. I just don't tell you that you probably won't and in some cases it's already mathematically impossible due to the number of people already in the organization.

 

[FrogReaver]

And you are wrong. Shockingly wrong.

Heck, I literally mentioned Pay Day loans. If you google "pay day loans" you get an entire page of options to take out a loan. if you add the word "bad" you immediately get none of those and instead get dozens of reports of how those loans are designed to trap you in a cycle of debt. Add "good" and you get a few locations, some generic bank info... then those same articles telling you why they are a terrible idea.

I don’t view pay day loans as inherently bad. However, they are a very bad option in most situations, just not all.

Do you think everyone who takes out a payday loan or gets a credit card with a high interest rate was coerced or mentally ill?

I don’t find either of those things to be inherently exploitative.

Maybe or maybe not the art contest was exploitative. A lot of artists who have a lot of knowledge about these sort of contests said it was, because it matches the pattern of similar contests. I'm defaulting to think they probably had a good reason to say so. And "well, you can't be exploited if you agree to play the game" isn't an acceptable standard, because there are dozens and hundreds of examples of this being dead wrong.



No, it isn't.

unless there’s coercion or mental illness or deception then having the option to play or not to play eliminates exploitation.

 

[FrogReaver]

So are the terms for unpaid internships, or for underpaid "minimum wage" jobs. Doesn't make them right, and due to the material conditions of our current economy there's bound to be people who see them for what they are but for them is still the best choice. Which is hardly a choice at all.

Unpaid internships aren’t exploitative either. Though I think they are bad for society for a different reason, they limit opportunities to people well off enough to accept such a position. Which decreases the talent pool and essentially eliminates competition.