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).

 

[J.Quondam]

As usual, perspective helps find a reasonable way.

Yep, and that's exactly what my point was with my closing sentence in the previous post. But whether finding that "reasonable way" is actually solvable, I have no idea. It's not like this is a new problem, after all; similar issues have bedeviled creative industries for decades.

So I hope someone figures it out, for the sake of all those hobby creatives out there and the established professionals.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

So I hope someone figures it out, for the sake of all those hobby creatives out there and the established professionals.

In today's digitized gig economy, the line between the two is becoming increasingly blurry.

 

[Faolyn]

Reminder: Token frames. We're talking about token frames. Is there a graphic designer out there selling exclusive rights to token frames? Actually, if a company's contract demands exclusive rights to your token frames, you should just redline and send that back.

You joke, but there are actually people selling token frames for VTTs on drivethrurpg.

DriveThruRPG

www.drivethrurpg.com

 

[Lanefan]

Ok. It’s good to understand your position. All competitions that require some kind of creative effort are wrong without guaranteed pay out (which stops it being a competition). Fine. You’ve made that clear.

@Hussar can (and doubtless will!) speak for himself here; but for my part the problem isn't the competition/contest in itself, it's what becomes of the non-winning entries afterward.

If, for non-winning entries, all rights revert to the creator after the contest and the entry is returned or (if digital-only) shown to have been deleted/destroyed then everything's gold.

 

[J.Quondam]

You joke, but there are actually people selling token frames for VTTs on drivethrurpg.

Yeah, but they're totally not legit without BLOCKCHAIN™ technology!

 

[Greg Benage]

You joke, but there are actually people selling token frames for VTTs on drivethrurpg.

I don't joke, and the fact that people are selling (or listing for sale) token frames has nothing to do with my point. Is anyone selling exclusive rights to token frames to any company out there? If not, then no one is actually encumbering their rights by entering this contest, because no one was going to be selling exclusive rights to token frames anyway.

(Perfectly legit if someone doesn't want to grant any rights in their work to DDB just to enter the contest, of course.)

 

[Lanefan]

All the problems with the principles go away when you stop treating contests like this as work and think of them as entertainment instead.

People seem to be under the miconception that big companies run art contests to generate art, when the actual purpose is to generate Fan Engagement.

The end result, however, is that the company ends up generating both.

And this isn't just limited to art contests. Music contests, literary contests, trade-design contests - any contest where creative work is submitted along with the rights to use non-winning entries without compensation - all of these have the same issue.

Take away the right-to-use-without-compensation piece and much of the problem goes away.

Every minute someone spends working on an entry ties them mentally closer to the Brand, even if the entry is artistically hopeless and stands no chance of winning. If the winning entry is good enough to include in a Product then that's merely a bonus.

In an ideal world this is exactly right; and removing the right-to-use clause really doesn't change that.

 

[NotAYakk]

Why is it "icky" if it's voluntary? If you don't want to sign the rights to that particular piece away ... don't enter the contest?

Am I missing a nuance here?

As it happens, the "right" to unlimited free contracts turns out to be cancer.

If you believe in free contracts as being good, here is an example:

You hereby agree to, in exchange for the consideration of reading the contents of any spoiler I ever write on this boards (including the one below), to transfer 90% of your future income to me within a year of earning it. You are responsible for tracking me down. Every year you fail to transfer this money to me, the debt increases by factor of 3. Each dollar of this debt is guaranteed against all of your assets you have any claim to, including assets you own jointly. You agree that any attempt at bankruptcy can clear your past debt, but future income remains, as the experience of reading the below spoiler remains. If any clause in this contract is found illegal, the rest of this contract stands.

Spoiler

Under unlimited free contract, that is a legitimate contract. I hope you enjoyed the spoiler. And the fact it wasn't signed is pretty much irrelevant.

Feel free to enjoy the "right" of unlimited free contract.

 

[R_J_K75]

Anyway, certain men began to sue claiming it wasn't gender neutral. I mean- of course it wasn't. So in a lot of places, you can't find these sorts of preferences.

Again I dont see the problem. If "Ladies Night" isnt your thing, dont go. People are just too litigious.

 

[Lanefan]

1. Companies generally don't run these types of contests to get "free stuff." At all. It's not like Hasbro would be like, "Hey, let's get an entirely fan created Monster Manual by running contests!!!!" Do you know why?

Because it's not worth it. You have to pay attorneys to set up these contests. You have to pay your staff to sift through the entries. And the vast, vast majority of contests solicit a lot of stuff that ... sucks.

Let's run with this for a moment. You put on a design-a-monster contest and get, say, 10,000 entries, of which 98% are absolutely hopeless and half the rest are borderline.

That still gives you 100 useable monsters for your Monster Manual; 200 if you can make anything out of the borderline ones which - as you now co-own the rights to them - you're free to do by tweaking them or cleaning them up or whatever.

Boom. Fan-created Monster Manual, likely at considerably less overall cost to you than had it all been done in-house, and with a built-in buyer base it wouldn't have otherwise had (this the marketing piece referred to below).

2. So why do it? Because there is always an ulterior motive. If you peer behind the scenes, it's always for marketing. To get contact information for customers. To build excitement and brand loyalty. The actual contest itself is almost always secondary to the company. To use a famous example, there is that "free" NCAA bracket contest that allowed you to win a BILLION dollars- of course, the insurance on the contest that Quicken Loans paid wasn't a billion dollars (given the odds of payout) and to enter the contest, you had to provide all of this information- which normally they would have to pay a pretty penny for. They made out like bandits.

This points out something else that IMO should be legislated and enforced: a contest must give out all the prizes it advertises. Advertise a billion dollar prize? Good. Someone's winning a billion dollars at the end of this contest and if not, contest organizers are getitng arrested. (and yes, this would do away with cumulative lottery jackpots)

3. If this is the case, why have the onerous terms? Because lawyers, that's why. Look at any contest in which you submit something to a "real company" now, and you will find similar language. Here's the basic issue- companies don't want you to sue them. Most of these contests aren't cost-effective to begin with; add in lawsuits, and it's stupid to run them. And America runs on lawsuits.

So do far too many other countries. It's a sad commentary on society.