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: 8374644" data-attributes="member: 7023840">Anyway, to recap the substantive points that were already made a while back:1. Creatives in the TTRPG industry need to get paid more. I started a thread about it <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/revolutions-are-always-verbose-effecting-change-in-the-ttrpg-industry.681187/" target="_blank">here</a>. Eventually, it got sidetracked by some people coming in trying to say that they shouldn't have to tip service industry people more than 10%. Because we can't have nice things on the internet.2. The specific issues involved with contests and sweepstakes (which are terms of art) are very well-known, and are separate and distinct from "on spec" work. This was discussed earlier in this thread. These problems are exacerbated by older laws in the US that vary state-to-state and the rise of the internet, which is both national and international.3. A quick perusal of the T&C used by D&D Beyond shows that rather than this being an exploitative contest, the issue was caused by using the auto-generated language by software from an Australian company. A deep dive, with all the source documents, is <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/anatomy-of-a-snafu-d-d-beyond-and-the-curious-contest.681839/" target="_blank">here</a>. Comment #10 has the full description if you don't understand the first post. The main takeaway is that the contest used the exact same language as the prior sweepstakes- not because this was an attempt to get art, but just because this was using off-the-shelf sweepstakes software that was not specific to America. But given the source documents are posted, you can form your own opinions.4. A final complication is the concomitant issues of liability (something all business in the United States are terrified of) and intellectual property- an area which is a hotbed of confusion and litigation. But these issues are what drive the T&C and TOS of almost everything you use; if you look at almost any website, from facebook to instagram that has "lawyered up" language, you will see that by posting your work, you have granted a license to the company to use it. If you look at any contest that has submissions, such as the Apple iPhone contests, you will also see that language.5. Finally, facts do matter (IMO). If, for example, a high school is running a contest for student art, that is clearly different than a place that is running an art contest and requiring submissions to be "paid" and does not disclose the rules or judges.EDIT- To be clear, and as I have repeatedly stated, it is possible that there is an argument that all art competitions run by for-profit businesses are exploitative and should not be allowed. But that absolute stance can be incorrect; I think that (for example) there are cases where companies run contests that are generally not seen as exploitative (such as the iPhone photography contest by Apple)- but maybe I'm incorrect.</blockquote>

Verification