NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8361183" data-attributes="member: 7023840">I hope people aren't thinking that. It's interesting, that depending on your perspective, you find something hilarious, while others might find it kind of sad.For example, both Whizzbang and I (who have repeatedly posted on the need to pay creatives more- I just had a whole thread about organizing for it!) have tried to say that the issue here isn't about creative pay, it's about legal language that is required for companies to solicit creative work for competitions, especially when those companies produce creative work.This may seem to be a small thing to you- after all, you find it hilarious that people don't seem to know much (or squat) about the "modern digital art market," whereas others might think it is bizarre that you don't seem to understand (or care to understand?) why certain language is inserted for legal reasons.To give you a basic example- if you look at the fine print of most nationwide (sometimes with certain exemptions for some states) contest with a prize run by a company, it will always have a disclaimer saying you don't need to buy the company's products, or anything, in order to enter- this has a long history so that companies can avoid running afoul of certain state gambling laws as well as federal law; after all, if you have to purchase something to win a prize, you're running a lottery. Now, a person might say, "That's stupid. That's just so stupid. It's not like anyone ever does that." And yet, you kinda have to. If you want to run the contest.As has been explained at length, there is a specific reason for the inclusion of this language; companies don't want to get sued. Because they do. All the time. This isn't just about pre-clearing the winners, it's more so that they don't face uncapped liability down the road."But wait," you say. What about [USER=22779]@Hussar[/USER] 's  idea- you know, just hire people to go through the submissions each time and make sure you're not copying anything?This is approximately how that conversation would work:Alice: Hussar in marketing would like to run a creative contest! Solicit writing/art! It will be great marketing for our company!Carrie the CEO: Great! But wait, didn't DnD Beyond get in trouble for that? Why spend all the money setting up the contest and administering it, if we are just going to get flamed for it? It's not like we get great stuff most of the time- the modern spec art market is so cheap, let's just buy the stuff at above market rates instead. That's a lot cheaper than a contest.Alice: No, Hussar says it will be fine, because we won't own any rights.Carrie: Debbie, will that work?Debbie Downer, Legal Compliance: Well, if we don't own any rights, and we don't at least have a license, then we have have strong down-side liability. I have to say no.Alice: No, Hussar has a great idea; we will just hire people to review the submissions each time we put out a new product to make sure we aren't infringing!Carrie: Um, so we have to pay people to review the contest submissions each time we put out a new product? That sounds ...  expensive. Really expensive. But it's the right thing to do! Okay, Debbie, will that work? So we won't get sued?Debbie: Well, no. People sue all the time. Reviewing them might help factually, but it's not a defense. We'll still have to pay for the litigation, and that's what costs the real money. The entire purpose of the language we put in is so that if someone submits something and sues us later, we don't have to spend tons of money on litigation.Carrie: sigh Okay, let's just not run the contest.Look, I agree with your points about pay. Creatives should be paid more. I think that the business model in the TTRPG industry is messed up (well, more that just that industry, but that's why we are here).But I think the following things are true-1. There are scams out there; contests that are run by fly-by-night organizations, some that require "entry fees" (ahem "processing fees" for art) or others that intend to use your art (sell it for stock photography, for example, or keep it for their own use). That is morally wrong and needs to be called out. I think [USER=7030100]@J.Quondam[/USER] mentioned that this happened to him. Unfortunately, scams happen all the time and are not limited to contests. Still, watch out.2. More responsible companies aren't soliciting art for their own use (except for the winners, which they could have gotten cheaper on spec)- but they do require protection. And here, it does get complicated. Because there are requirements and certain legal language that may work, and may not, and companies don't want the downside risk of getting sued for running a competition. Usually, the "dual license" (the artist agrees that by entering the competition, they will provide an irrevocable license to the company for X, Y, and Z) will protect both parties.Again, I am agnostic on this issue of fan competitions in the creative sphere run by companies. Because when I think of it, I tend to think of amateurs and it being a loss-leader for the company, but a fun "event" for the fans. And they've dwindled a lot because of the downside litigation risks even with this language (because it's not just companies that suck- companies are people. We suck. We are the reason for this language, because we sue for everything in this country, unfortunately).But maybe you're right. Maybe all contests such as this are bad! Maybe creative contests run by companies are akin to unpaid internships (which I am so against). I don't have an answer for that, and I honestly haven't thought about it much because I've always viewed them as loss leaders and harmless fun primarily for fans.In the end, the better focus is whether you want these types of fan contests at all. Because if the demand is that companies don't protect themselves, then I think that the likely response (from legal departments and insurers) is that they don't run them.IMO, YMMV, etc.</blockquote>

Verification