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]

So, that can hold if you had no reasonable way to have prior knowledge of the work.

If, however, D&D Beyond has been given a copy of your work as a contest submission, and a year or two or seven, or twenty years later (copyright lasts a long time) they use art that is "substantially similar", then they don't get to use that as a defense.

Which is really why they reserve right to the work - it isn't that they actually plan to use your work for free. It is so you cannot, later on, say they didn't have right to make something similar to it.

But, again, all this does is cover contest entrants. It doesn't cover the hundreds of artists and thousands of images already in existence right now.

At best, the company holding onto these rights simply reduces the chances of getting sued. They STILL have to do image searches and whatnot every time they produce images for their own use because, well, there's already thousands of similar images that are used for the same purpose - to frame a small digital portrait - already for sale and have been for twenty years.

Since they already have to do all this anyway, what are they actually saving?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

But, this doesn't stop the ten people. All it does is reduce the chances, true, by removing contestants from the pool of "people who could sue me" but, that pool still exists. And it's a pretty large pool. There are many, many artists out there who have created thousands of these style of images. And every single one of them could potentially sue you.

So, how has the company been protected?

Because it will be nearly impossible for someone to show that they provided the art, if there was no evidence of prior knowledge. The contest is what leads to possible litigation.

And an attorney won’t take the case if they see that there is a license, because it can’t win, so there’s no lawsuit.

This isn’t hard. This is contracts 101.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

B.

Since they already have to do all this anyway, what are they actually saving?

No, they don’t have to do image searches absent the solicitation. I think you are missing some fundamental points.

 

[Hussar]

Because it will be nearly impossible for someone to show that they provided the art, if there was no evidence of prior knowledge. The contest is what leads to possible litigation.

And an attorney won’t take the case if they see that there is a license, because it can’t win, so there’s no lawsuit.

This isn’t hard. This is contracts 101.

I think something got lost in the translation. Why would someone selling frames on Roll 20, right now, not be able to sue D&DB for using a frame that looks too similar to the frame being sold?

Again, I'm saying that all you've done is make the pool of people who can sue you smaller. You haven't emptied the pool. There is still a very large pool of people who can potentially sue you for putting up this image. Which means, before D&DB declares a winner, they will have to pay for the image search, just to cover their own ass.

Because there is zero guarantee that someone entering a contest with a fantastic idea is the first person ever to have that fantastic idea.

 

[Lanefan]

Every secondary student in the UK does unpaid work experience in their mid teens. It’s unpaid. They work. Is it exploitative?

Yes.

We also take older work experience candidates who want experience for applications for medical school or further education courses. Even just because they want to work in the field. Again exploitative or not?

If they're not being paid a fair wage, then yes.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

@Hussar. At this point, I honestly think that in your desire to argue a point, you may have lost sight of what has been repeatedly discussed (or you may have a shaky grasp of the main issues).

If you think you have a truly great argument, have at it. I will just reiterate that:
1. This boilerplate language is inserted to protect from liability, not to steal IP. For a contest, this type of licensing language is as standard as a merger clause.
2. Companies do NOT do image searches all the time. This is an idea you keep bringing up. Not sure why. It started when you said they should protect themselves from the contest entries, and now you’re saying that they would need to do it for everyone always - which they don’t do.

I got nothing else on this for you.

 

[Hussar]

Yes.

If they're not being paid a fair wage, then yes.

Hang on, I'm going to disagree, but, then I'm going to explain why this sidebar doesn't really apply.

The students are being given on the job training. IOW, this is an educational experience for the students that is being provided by businesses. The students are getting something tangible out of this - work experience that can help them later on down the line - and they are also given educational credit as well - at least in Canada. There isn't really any exploitation going on here since the student is not taking work from anyone, firstly. It's not like the student is sitting down into a normally paid position and not getting paid for it. The student is doing, mostly, job shadow and job training stuff.

It's no different than repairing a car in shop class. Yes, work is being done, but, the point of the exercise is to learn how to repair the car. Or, doing art class for that matter. We don't worry about rights at all in an art class because it's being done for training purposes. No one is really getting any benefit that is out of line. The student gets the work experience, the company gets very little out of the deal. Again, no one is expecting that student to do any real work.

Now, on to why this doesn't apply to the current example.

If the contest was offering to train contestants in the use of some art program, pay someone to teach contestants (after all, in the work/study program, someone is getting paid to train that student), and then the best student in the program would have their art featured, then it would be a fair comparison. Everyone who participates is getting something of value for their time. Value for time doesn't necessarily have to be money.

But, that's not what's going on here or, really, in most contests. The contestants are 100% responsible for their own training, learning, and time. They are not compensated in any way, shape or form. They aren't even given "exposure" since only the winning entries will be shown. So, 99% of the entrants are being completely exploited. They receive nothing of value for their time and effort from the contest runners. OTOH, the contest runners ARE getting something of value from every single entrant - the non-exclusive rights to every art piece submitted. That has value. It might only be 2 cents, but, it still has value. Never minding the value of the marketing, but, let's put that off to the side for a moment.

So, no, work/study programs are nothing like contests. A work/study program trades time for training and experience. The company doing the work/study program certainly isn't meaningfully gaining anything of real value in the deal. That's why it's a volunteer program. The cost of having that student there is far, far more than any benefit the company could possibly get.

 

[Umbran]

But, again, all this does is cover contest entrants.

Yep.

It doesn't cover the hundreds of artists and thousands of images already in existence right now.

Correct. And it was never intended to cover all those others.

At best, the company holding onto these rights simply reduces the chances of getting sued.

Precisely! That is exactly the point! Reducing the risk is the goal. In corporate speak, it is more commonly called "risk mitigation". Broadly speaking, risk cannot be completely eliminated, but if you can take low-cost steps that greatly reduce the risk (like, say, by including such a clause), then it is often cost-effective to do so.

Since they already have to do all this anyway, what are they actually saving?

"Since it isn't perfect and cover cases that have nothing to do with the contest, why bother?" If it isn't perfect for everything, why take any steps at all?

Let me ask you - you carry some form of insurance, don't you? Auto, home, health, something, right? Is that insurance built to completely cover any and all possible costs? No? Well, there you have it!

So, yes, each piece of art posted publicly on the internet is a potential small risk, in theory. However, my understanding is that the cases follow thusly:

Case 1: You have no prior business contact with Company. Company puts out a piece of art that you think looks like yours. You need many points of similarity between the pieces to win the case. Having found your art on the internet is hypothetical, and so the argument that they developed the piece independently is highly plausible. You need the images to be VERY similar to overcome that.

Case 2: You have submitted a piece of art to the Company for a contest. Company puts out a piece of art that you think looks like yours. You need far fewer points of similarity between the pieces to win the case. You can establish that they had a copy of your work already - the scenario that they didn't independently develop the work is much more plausible.

And, with a contest, there are hundreds or thousands of potential Case 2s hanging around for decades. Those risks add up.

But, boilerplate contract clauses are usually near zero cost. A near-zero cost to remove those hundreds or thousands of small risks is usually a win for the company.

 

[Hussar]

@Hussar. At this point, I honestly think that in your desire to argue a point, you may have lost sight of what has been repeatedly discussed (or you may have a shaky grasp of the main issues).

If you think you have a truly great argument, have at it. I will just reiterate that:
1. This boilerplate language is inserted to protect from liability, not to steal IP. For a contest, this type of licensing language is as standard as a merger clause.
2. Companies do NOT do image searches all the time. This is an idea you keep bringing up. Not sure why. It started when you said they should protect themselves from the contest entries, and now you’re saying that they would need to do it for everyone always - which they don’t do.

I got nothing else on this for you.

Again, I think you're missing my point.

The boilerplate language is there to protect from liability. I totally, 100% agree with you. But, it ONLY protects you from liability from contestants. Yes or no? Does the boilerplate language protect you from all liability? If I run this contest, with this language, am I 100% protected from any lawsuits from anyone, for all time?

Obviously not.

And, I think that companies DO do image searches all the time. They have to. Any time you whack up some art on your website, you're going to have to run it past legal to make sure that it's kosher. And part of that process is going to have to be checking that it's not going to make you liable to someone who is already using a very similar image.

Heck, the fact that someone, a few pages back, could quote the price so quickly for an image search like that means that it can't be rare. Heck, if it was so easy, then companies like Getty and Imagestock wouldn't exist. If you never had to worry about images that you put up on your website or whatever, why is Getty Image a multi-million dollar company?

All the boilerplate language has done is reduce the size of the pool of people who could potentially sue you down the line when you choose to post a similar style image to your website (or whatever). It has not removed that pool.

 

[Hussar]

Let me ask you - you carry some form of insurance, don't you? Auto, home, health, something, right? Is that insurance built to completely cover any and all possible costs? No? Well, there you have it!

No, but, my auto insurance covers all damages sustained while using my car. Granted, it's not going to cover meteor strike, that's true, but, it does cover everything that happens while I'm driving.

Sure, you can make the "don't let perfect be the enemy of good" argument. But, is that a justification for taking the rights away from people?

"Well, we're reducing the chances that we might get sued, at some unspecified point in the future, if we decide to produce art similar to the art in this contest. We're not actually making the chances zero. We're still completely liable to the hundreds or thousands of images that are already on the market right now as we speak and the people who are producing those images do have a vested interest in suing us since we're their direct competition, but, no, it's better that we take away your rights, devalue your work because you might sue us."

Not a very compelling argument IMO. See, because while there are hundreds or thousands of contest entrants, there are already hundreds and thousands of these images easily available on the internet. Good grief, there are several thousand for sale on Roll 20 right now. Never minding the token frames that people have made for tokens that aren't separate from the tokens they've made. After all, bespoke frames on bespoke tokens isn't unusual at all. Most token packs have something like that.

So, arguing that it's hypothetical is a bit difficult when it's a Google Image Search away from knowing if there is something too similar already out there.