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).

 

[FrogReaver]

Because lotteries and loot boxes heavily exploit the fact that most people are really REALLY bad at statistics.

While most people are bad at statistics, no one really thinks lotteries provide a good expected value. They don't play them to get a ROI. They play them either for fun or to have a chance at effortlessly improving their lifestyle.

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.

Insurance is based on the same principles as lotto. No one feels they are flushing their money down the toilet with insurance. There is value in 'wasting money' to ensure the unexpected doesn't degrade your lifestyle. Likewise when you have a poor lifestyle there is value in 'wasting money' on something that can substantially improve it even if it's a longshot. I mean 1 in a million is infinitely better than 0.

I don't think these people doing these things are idiots. It's simply a different value assessment.

 

[Mort]

While most people are bad at statistics, no one really thinks lotteries provide a good expected value. They don't play them to get a ROI. They play them either for fun or to have a chance at effortlessly improving their lifestyle.

Of course the lotto is made to look fun - draws money better that way.

I've talked to many, many people about spending money on the lottery/ other gambling - they really don't understand how little chance they have to win.

Look, I'm an attorney that specializes in Bankruptcy. People absolutely don't realize what a bad deal they're getting and they REALLY do think they will beat the odds. lotteries exploit this.

Insurance is based on the same principles as lotto. No one feels they are flushing their money down the toilet with insurance. There is value in 'wasting money' to ensure the unexpected doesn't degrade your lifestyle. Likewise when you have a poor lifestyle there is value in 'wasting money' on something that can substantially improve it even if it's a longshot.

Insurance is completely different - at least proper insurance (there are plenty of exploitative insurance policies out there too).

Proper insurance makes you pay a (relatively) small amount to protect against having to pay a massive expense.
My father-in-laws air conditioner just leaked into the house (for who knows how long), mold was found. Thankfully, their insurance covers the large expense.

I don't think these people doing these things are idiots. It's simply a different value assessment.

I'm not saying they are idiots, I'm saying they don't understand the actual numbers and lotteries/ loot crates etc. intentionally exploit that.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

When you buy a lottery ticket, what you pay for is to be able to fantasize for a bit about how you'd spend your winnings.

 

[Rabulias]

Not a lawyer nor a legal expert, but an observation about boilerplate language in terms and contracts: To truly judge its effectiveness, I think you should consider how many contracts and agreements that use boilerplate text that are not tested in court. If a contract/agreement works well enough for both parties that neither feels the need to go to court, then the boilerplate text has done its job and done it well. I would guess that most contracts do not end up in court.

Now, it is open to interpretation why the contract does not end up in court. I think in many cases both parties are satisfied for the most part and the agreement has provided each side with what they want. In some cases, one party or the other may be dissatisfied, but they recognize the terms of the contract would make it difficult, expensive, and/or impossible for them to win in court, so they do not bother. Again, the boilerplate text has done its job to keep the agreement in force and both parties out of court.

 

[jolt]

I do work for a patent/IP law firm. First of all, let me say that "law" is very complex; that's why you have lawyers and firms making crazy amount of money. Ownership law is particularly complex and very particular and "art" is it's own subsection of that. This is the kind of contest that fans/fandom really shouldn't be doing. Legal ownership requires very precise language; if you don't use that no agreement you make will be legally binding.

This is the problematic part: "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." Now, I don't know what the actual submission and/or contract language says, but that statement has all sorts of red flags.

First of all, when you create a piece of art, you own it and the rights to it. Even if you sell or give away that piece of art, the creator still owns the rights to it. Let's say that a company hires an artist to do art for their upcoming sci-fi board game. Any art that artist provides can only be used for that specific game, for that specific company, for that specific run, and any promotional material relating to that. Once any of that stops, the licensing ends. You see, all the time, when a board game is being released by a different company, or by the same company after a period of being out of print, and the art has changed. Gamers then cry foul, "Why did they change the art? The old art was better!" The answer to that is because they had to. Art licenses do not transfer nor can they be maintained in perpetuity. Can an agreement be made where the artist gives up those rights? Short answer: no.

Again, I haven't seen the actual language used nor do I know how D&D Beyond actually exists as an entity. But what I have seen is a mess and is even worse if you consider that the contest winner may not have even been from the US (at which point international law comes into play as well). Just because two people or entities agree on something doesn't mean that the agreement has any legal weight or merit. Even a signed agreement means nothing if the law isn't being followed properly.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Again, I haven't seen the actual language used ...

Have fun!

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

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

First of all, when you create a piece of art, you own it and the rights to it. Even if you sell or give away that piece of art, the creator still owns the rights to it. Let's say that a company hires an artist to do art for their upcoming sci-fi board game. Any art that artist provides can only be used for that specific game, for that specific company, for that specific run, and any promotional material relating to that. Once any of that stops, the licensing ends.

One question though ...

This seems to elide the whole work for hire, which is ... not a small thing?

 

[Malmuria]

What exactly makes them exploitative?

4 ways the lottery preys on the poor

Stop saying the lottery is for people who are bad at math.

www.vox.com

Loot boxes linked to problem gambling in new research

New research says there is a clear link between video game boxes and "problem gambling behaviours".

www.bbc.com

The uncontrollable urge to keep gambling despite the damage-Compulsive gambling - Symptoms & causes - Mayo Clinic

Also called gambling disorder, compulsive gambling is the uncontrollable urge to keep gambling despite the toll it takes on your life.

www.mayoclinic.org

To be clear, an art contest is not gambling. The question here is one of agency: if someone can be shown to "willingly" partake in an action (for example, taking an unpaid internship), does that mean that the situation can never be exploitative? To agree to that ignores many many layers of power dynamics that "push" people to participate in self-detrimental activities. Often, this is accompanied by a moral discourse in which the people being exploited due to lack of options are blamed for putting themselves in a bad situation.

 

[Lanefan]

My DM is unpaid too. Am I exploiting him?

Yes; but he's exploiting you-as-player in return, so it all neatly cancels out.

 

[Lanefan]

I do work for a patent/IP law firm. First of all, let me say that "law" is very complex; that's why you have lawyers and firms making crazy amount of money. Ownership law is particularly complex and very particular and "art" is it's own subsection of that. This is the kind of contest that fans/fandom really shouldn't be doing. Legal ownership requires very precise language; if you don't use that no agreement you make will be legally binding.

This is the problematic part: "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." Now, I don't know what the actual submission and/or contract language says, but that statement has all sorts of red flags.

First of all, when you create a piece of art, you own it and the rights to it. Even if you sell or give away that piece of art, the creator still owns the rights to it. Let's say that a company hires an artist to do art for their upcoming sci-fi board game. Any art that artist provides can only be used for that specific game, for that specific company, for that specific run, and any promotional material relating to that. Once any of that stops, the licensing ends. You see, all the time, when a board game is being released by a different company, or by the same company after a period of being out of print, and the art has changed. Gamers then cry foul, "Why did they change the art? The old art was better!" The answer to that is because they had to. Art licenses do not transfer nor can they be maintained in perpetuity. Can an agreement be made where the artist gives up those rights? Short answer: no.

Which leads to one rather ridiculous outcome, at least in the US according to a lawyer I talked to there: it is impossible for a creator to waive all rights in perpetuity and intentionally release something to the public domain as soon as it's created, without waiting the 50 years (after death? or however long it is) for the statutes to run out.

A few artists get around this via anonymous production and release, but it gets very difficult to tell people it exists without also either a) telling them who made it or b) looking like you're someone trying to rip off the original artist.