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).

 

[Umbran]

No, but, my auto insurance covers all damages sustained while using my car.

Are you sure it is ALL damages?

For liability, most auto insurance policies have limits - like $100K per person injury maximum, $300K total accident maximum, and $100K property damage maximum. I don't know of any typical insurance policy that you can buy that doesn't have caps beyond which you are liable. If you have a policy with no caps, I am surprised, but be aware that most of us cannot afford such.

Most of the world has to make an assessment of how much risk they can afford to cover.

Boilerplate contract language is very, very cheap, however.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Again, I think you're missing my point.

No, I'm not. I will say this nicely- I really think that in your desire to argue, you may be ... outkicking your coverage team. It's clear that you're not familiar with the concepts. That's okay- some of these are technical- but usually, people would have some curiosity and ask questions instead of proceed from an argumentative standpoint. And given your fire of moral outrage, I will just point this out and leave it at that.

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?

Of course not. But ... that's never been the issue of discussion for me. This is about how companies protect themselves in contests (unilateral contracts). Not about "how can a company be protected from lawsuits 100% of the time, from anyone!" I mean- America?

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.

No, companies don't. They really don't. Let me show you just how badly you don't understand this-

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.

That wasn't for an "image search." What that person was discussing (with us) is something involving "prior art," which is one of those terms that you might hear when you're near attorneys that work in IP. Patent bars, and all that.

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?

Again, the very real issues of photo attribution, moral rights, and IP, and the roles that stock companies play (and the often underhanded ways in which they have gotten some of their catalog), is neither here nor there.

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.

Nope. You don't get it. I will suggest going back and reading what Wizzbang wrote, what I wrote, and even what Umbran and others have written.

But if you need this drastically simplified-
If you are a creative company, running a competition in which you solicit creative work greatly increases your liability risk. Massively. The best way to defend against this liability risk is not to run these types of competitions. The second best way is to defend yourself contractually from the entrants, including through the grant of a license (if you really want to belt and suspender it, you might include an arbitration clause, inconvenient forum, limitations on liability, third-party indemnification, multiple warrants made by the entrant, waiver of class action, and so on).

Look, I get your moral outrage; but moral outrage doesn't mean that you are suddenly an expert in a lot of things you aren't. Or maybe you are! Who knows. I mean- based on what you've written, I don't think you understand contracts or IP very well, but maybe I'm the idiot. Again, wouldn't be the first time. Since on the internet, we are all dogs, we can only be judged on our writings, eh?

I appreciated the discussion earlier- but it's becoming clear you just want to argue about things one of us doesn't understand. I'm out.

 

[Hussar]

Are you sure it is ALL damages?

For liability, most auto insurance policies have limits - like $100K per person injury maximum, $300K total accident maximum, and $100K property damage maximum. I don't know of any typical insurance policy that you can buy that doesn't have caps beyond which you are liable. If you have a policy with no caps, I am surprised, but be aware that most of us cannot afford such.

Most of the world has to make an assessment of how much risk they can afford to cover.

Boilerplate contract language is very, very cheap, however.

It's been a really long time since I was insured in Canada, so, I'm going by memory, but, I do recall my life insurance coverage was 1 million for a basic package. I'd be utterly shocked if property damage was less than that. Additionally, I lived in a no-fault insurance province, so, that might account for differences and lastly, we don't ever have a personal injury maximum since our hospitals are 100% covered. Our car insurance doesn't pay for our hospital stay. It likely would kick in for any rehab work later on down the line, but, as far as personal injury, 100k? Good grief, that's nothing. Yikes.

 

[Hussar]

If you are a creative company, running a competition in which you solicit creative work greatly increases your liability risk. Massively.

I don't understand particularly how, but, I will take your word for it.

 

[GuyBoy]

So, do they get paid for the work they do?

Because while all those other elements are great, I'm kind of leery of a set-up where children who are (at least in terms of the US, UK law may be very different) legally not allowed to enter into a contract are working a job, with no compensation.

No, they don’t get paid. I would argue that it’s a form of deferred payment, however; the skills they learn and the contacts they make both serve to assist them when they seek paid employment as a young adult.

 

[FrogReaver]

Umm, I would point to the multi-billion dollar industry of college football in the United States where players are essentially unpaid.

My DM is unpaid too. Am I exploiting him?

 

[FrogReaver]

People who buy lottery tickets or video game loot boxes do so willingly. Are those things exploitative? (yes)

I guess that means enworld is exploiting us because they aren't paying us for our posts

(Sarcasm)

 

[FrogReaver]

People who buy lottery tickets or video game loot boxes do so willingly. Are those things exploitative? (yes)

What exactly makes them exploitative?

 

[Mort]

What exactly makes them exploitative?

Because lotteries and loot boxes heavily exploit the fact that most people are really REALLY bad at statistics. States and companies use all sorts of shiny advertising and deceptive language to make people think they have a real shot at making serious money/getting valuable stuff etc. When in reality, they may as well be flushing the money they spent down the toilet.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

@Hussar

I got in touch with a dear friend of mine and posted a thread on this topic. Maybe you'll find it interesting.

D&D 5E - Anatomy of a Snafu- D&D Beyond and the Curious Contest

Is it snafu or snarfu? I digress.... The following two threads are probably relevant to this thread, and will explain why I am doing a deep dive on this issue: Thread about pay in the TTRPG Industry Thread about D&D Beyond Canceling an Art Competition I realized today that while many people...

www.enworld.org