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).

 

[HomegrownHydra]

I believe the "child labour" thing was brought up by exactly one poster. Who hasn't, AFAIR posted anything since. It's not like it's even remotely central or even pertinent to the discussion at hand.

Yet, now, we have to spend post after post discussing it because you object to a comparison that virtually no one is making.

I suggest you look up the definition of tone policing and can we please get back to the actual issue instead of standing about the water cooler mentally flagellating the point that doesn't matter?

The person who spoke about exploiting children has posted numerous times since then, including as recent as two pages ago. We have also had frequent uses of "predatory", at least at the beginning of the thread, and my statement that you are now addressing was directed toward the person who used the sweatshop reference. I am dealing with the issues raised in this thread, it is the ridiculous "tone policing" accusation that is derailing things.

 

[HomegrownHydra]

Asked and answered.

1. Don't run competitions that ask artists to give up rights to products you may or may not sell in the future.

2. Don't run competitions that ask artists to give up rights.

Saying "Don't run a competition" doesn't answer how to run a competition.

3. The competition runner gets the right to display the art but no publication rights.

That doesn't resolve the legal issue of people suing because some future art resembles their submission.

4. The competition runner gets the rights to the winner(s) but all other artists retain full rights.

Neither does this.

Yes, in every one of these cases it means that the onus is on the competition runner to check in the future that they are not inadvertently copying someone's submission. That's the cost of running a contest where you are asking for thousands of hours of free labour. I don't really have a lot of sympathy for the contest runner here.

These solutions have already been suggested and I'm sure there are others.

I get this perspective, which is why I've been asking for solutions regarding how to run such a contest. You clearly think that I'm siding with the awful exploitive companies and trying to justify them screwing over artists, but I'm honestly trying to get my head around this issue because it is new to me and I'm interested on what the right way forward is. So I am going to disengage from you on this issue for the time being because I now understand your position and I'm not here to argue with you. You can have the last word.

 

[Hussar]

Wizbang and Snarf have explained extremely well the legal rationale for why DnDBeyond would claim those rights, and I find those explanations to be persuasive. You don't. We'll have to agree to disagree on this because neither of us knows what exactly their plans are for the losing submissions.

It's the people who don't win the contest who might possibly sue so this doesn't resolve the legal issue.

The specific sentence you're quoting here was in response to a specific question by Hussar asking why the losing contestants shouldn't be paid. It was only dealing with that specific question.

I'm very open to this perspective.

See, the thing is, everyone understands this. There's no question here that this is entirely to cover the company's behind.

However, it doesn't change the fact that there are other, entirely plausible ways for the contest runner to do exactly the same thing. Granted, it now costs the contest runner more money to run the contest (presuming they want to sell something that might conflict with contest entries) but, that doesn't stop the contest runner from running the contest.

"We're going to take the publication rights away from the work of hundreds or possibly thousands of people, because otherwise, we'd have to pay someone to check that we didn't copy someone by accident" isn't a very compelling argument for devaluing someone's work and getting thousands of hours of free labour. The legal issue is resolved and no one has to have their work devalued.

Everyone wins. The company simply folds the cost of future checking into the cost of running the contest.

 

[Hussar]

Oh, and let's not forget the argument that artists are being "paid" by gaining exposure. Only problem is, only the winning artists will gain any exposure. Now, if that's the point of the contest - to showcase a new artist and give that artist or artists exposure, why not simply hire? You put the advertisement out that you need someone to design a piece of art for you, people send you their portfolios (which you have no rights to), you hire the ones that you feel are best, able to meet deadlines, whatever. And then you give that artist or artists all sorts of exposure by making it very clear who designed that piece of art for you and maybe do a blog post or something similar highlighting this artist.

Oh, right, that doesn't gain thousands of free advertisements. But, that's not the point of the contest is it? To gain free advertising? That's not the stated goal of the contest after all. The stated goal of the contest is to get the best VTT frame for a character image. So, if that's the stated goal, advertising and viral marketing shouldn't be a consideration...

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yep. It's the same reason experienced executives don't bother with entry level positions.

Or it jump started those careers.

Or it could be a sign of something bad. Do a little research into the non-union workers hired by Sabat for the original Power Rangers. They were all new, fresh faces who didn't have a career yet.

They worked in dangerous conditions (the actress for the pink ranger was nearly electrocuted on set), they worked long hours until they were exhausted, and they were paid 600 dollars a week. Incredibly low, even by first time actor standards.

And when the show was successful and three of the members went to Sabat to demand things like a raise and better working conditions? Fired and replaced. With more non-union actors.

Sure, it gave us Power Rangers, but it was clearly exploitative and wrong. Relying on the inexperience of individuals in question to get away with practices no one with more experience would tolerate.

Same with the writer of the Forest Gump Novel, who was cheated out of the movie sales, because he didn't know the legal lingo the companies use for "Hollywood Accounting" and a massively successful film "technically" made no money, so he made no money.


Was this particular example as bad as those? No. But it shows that just saying "but this is for amateurs, it might start their career" is naive at best. Especially since, this wasn't an amatuer contest. Those are called out. This was a general call to the community, many of whom do design work of one sort or another.

 

[Hussar]

There's a certain amount of irony here. Just below where I'm typing is the box for "similar threads". My box has D&D General - Win Prizes In The World of Farland's 20th anniversary Contest! - Win Prizes in the World of Farland's 20th Anniversary Contest. Oh look, a nice viral marketing tool that doesn't screw anyone over. Imagine that.

 

[TheSword]

Oh look, a nice viral marketing tool that doesn't screw anyone over. Imagine that.

It’s a trivia question related to that brand. It’s a totally different type of competition. That while it does does encourage someone to read the work, it doesn’t encourage them to use it. Not all creative competitions are bad.

"We're going to take the publication rights away from the work of hundreds or possibly thousands of people, because otherwise, we'd have to pay someone to check that we didn't copy someone by accident" isn't a very compelling argument for devaluing someone's work and getting thousands of hours of free labour. The legal issue is resolved and no one has to have their work devalued.

Either WOC or DDB were taking publication rights away. Both groups had made it explicitly clear that you could publish independently the same work. It’s been pointed out several times. Are you now in danger of being misleading?

Oh, and let's not forget the argument that artists are being "paid" by gaining exposure. Only problem is, only the winning artists will gain any exposure.

Straw man. That isn’t what is being discussed here. Anyone claiming that this was the case of as quickly shut down. We know if the creation is used it’s creator should receive some form of remuneration. You’re trying to take it a step further though and say they should receive remuneration even if it isn’t used or don’t run the competition. Very sad decision to take.

 

[Maxperson]

Or it could be a sign of something bad. Do a little research into the non-union workers hired by Sabat for the original Power Rangers. They were all new, fresh faces who didn't have a career yet.

They worked in dangerous conditions (the actress for the pink ranger was nearly electrocuted on set), they worked long hours until they were exhausted, and they were paid 600 dollars a week. Incredibly low, even by first time actor standards.

And when the show was successful and three of the members went to Sabat to demand things like a raise and better working conditions? Fired and replaced. With more non-union actors.

Sure, it gave us Power Rangers, but it was clearly exploitative and wrong. Relying on the inexperience of individuals in question to get away with practices no one with more experience would tolerate.

Same with the writer of the Forest Gump Novel, who was cheated out of the movie sales, because he didn't know the legal lingo the companies use for "Hollywood Accounting" and a massively successful film "technically" made no money, so he made no money.


Was this particular example as bad as those? No. But it shows that just saying "but this is for amateurs, it might start their career" is naive at best. Especially since, this wasn't an amatuer contest. Those are called out. This was a general call to the community, many of whom do design work of one sort or another.

Some bad things have happened does not equate to "this is an instance of a bad thing." Has D&D beyond done this before and then used the submissions without paying, only to do it again this time when the artists asked for money? If not, it doesn't equate to what happened with the Power Rangers. Did the artists for this contest contract with D&D Beyond for money only to be swindled out of it? If not, then it does not equate to what happened with Forest Gump.

Basically you're looking at something that might, possibly, maybe be something bad and just assuming that it is bad.

 

[Hussar]

Sorry @TheSword I missed you answer. Did you give away any rights to your work in that poetry contest?

AFAIK WotC has not run a contest that takes any rights away from creatives. All DnD contests are covered under the SRD which means no rights have been taken.

DDB however is taking rights to original work away from contestants without any remuneration. Apples and oranges. As was already explained.

What I am saying is that if you are taking something of value from someone, you should pay for it.

How is this even remotely controversial?

You can certainly run the contest. You just don’t get any ownership over the thousands of man hours of labour.

Why should creatives be forced to pay to protect the contest runner?

 

[TheSword]

Sorry @TheSword I missed you answer. Did you give away any rights to your work in that poetry contest?

AFAIK WotC has not run a contest that takes any rights away from creatives. All DnD contests are covered under the SRD which means no rights have been taken.

DDB however is taking rights to original work away from contestants without any remuneration. Apples and oranges. As was already explained.

What I am saying is that if you are taking something of value from someone, you should pay for it.

How is this even remotely controversial?

You can certainly run the contest. You just don’t get any ownership over the thousands of man hours of labour.

Why should creatives be forced to pay to protect the contest runner?

lol. I was 10 years old, your guess is as good as mine. Perhaps in some archive somewhere a newspaper with fine print will say Alton Towers had the right to use my poem. I wouldn’t be surprised if it did.

Im not sure it is apples and oranges Hussar. The SRD could be just as exploitative if WOC didn’t follow the principle of ‘You use it you remunerate for it’.

As has been said many many many times on the issue. If the right isn’t taken to publish, but merely to protect yourself, or if they are free to publish elsewhere then you haven’t taken something of value away.

Im not going keep this game of tennis up with you Hussar. There’s no prize money at the end of it. I’m not going to keep batting the same ‘taking rights away’ ball back across the net to you.