[UPDATED] DM's Guild No Longer Allows Creator Logos On Product Covers

The Dungeon Master's Guild - the WotC/DTRPG-run storefront where fans can sell their own D&D content - has updated it terms to clarify that creators cannot put their own logos on the covers of their products. The only permitted logo is the DM's Guild logo itself.

The Dungeon Master's Guild - the WotC/DTRPG-run storefront where fans can sell their own D&D content - has updated it terms to clarify that creators cannot put their own logos on the covers of their products. The only permitted logo is the DM's Guild logo itself.

DMsGuildProductLogoLarge.png



It should be noted that creators can still put their own logo inside their products. The DMs Guild terms have been updated to reflect this.

Can I use the D&D logo on my DMs Guild title?

The only logo you can use in your title is the DMs Guild logo [found here]

Custom logos and other variations of existing logos are not allowed



Screen Shot 2018-01-30 at 12.13.23.png


The policy change, seen in the image above, was (oddly) announced in a private DM's Guild Fan Club Facebook group owned by David Russell. Fortunately EN World member MerricB screenshot some of the replies to questions.


DUwmiD4VAAA9gfu.jpg


DUwmttvV4AAY9ML.jpg


DUwm98wU8AA5hWy.jpg

("CCC" means "Con Created Content")


The policy will be applied for new products, but will not be enforced retroactively on existing products

DMs Guild is a popular way for fans to sell PDF content in exchange for a 50% royalty on sales of their product, along with an exclusivity agreement, and allows access to settings such as the Forgotten Realms. It's a model which has inspired a number of other publisher-led fan stores from companies like Monte Cook Games, Chaosium, even my own little EN Publishing.

Generally speaking, at a quick glance, most covers don't have much by way of personal branding - sometimes a small logo, or a line name like the Power Score RPG PDF shown below. One of the items below has D&D Beyond branding on it, and it would be interesting to see if the policy applies to that product. However, it does seem like this will make it more difficult for small companies or groups using different authors to build a following on the site; individual authors, on the other hand, should find it easier.



218782-thumb140.jpg
211941-thumb140.jpg
226194-thumb140.jpg
200486-thumb140.jpg


Last year, WotC announced a new policy where they promote a group of ten or so DMs Guild authors; these were called the "DMs Guild Adepts", who they give special attention to in marketing, podcasts, and so on, along with their own special gold branding logo. This was initially promoted as a way of sorting quality product from the thousands of items on the store.

OBS' Jason Bolte commented on the reasons for the change:

"There are a number of reasons for the change, and it’s something we’ve discussed internally for a while now. One impetus is to be consistent across all of our community creation platforms. Another reason is to have clearer rules that we can enforce given our existing resources.

The DMs Guild logo we provide is intended to satisfy a lot of the messaging that others logos would normally do. First, it signifies that the product is a member of the wonderful community that is the DMs Guild. Second, it signals that the product is for the Dungeons & Dragons game. We have provided it to this amazing group specifically for those reasons.

The problem comes with the other branding, which often trends toward copyright infringement or trademark violations. Variations on the Dungeons & Dragons logo, the D&D branding, other DMs Guild logos, etc are common on new titles coming into the site. As we see more and more permutations, the lines get fuzzier and grayer, and it’s difficult for us to keep up and enforce. And since we’re dealing with intellectual property, branding, and trademarks in a retail setting, there are a number of reasons for us to find clear and enforceable rules for creators both old and new.

So those are some of the many reasons a for the change in policy. We are always evaluating the site and watching its evolution, and we will continue to update our policies as the site grows and the community it makes more and more excellent content."


I've added some more information from the private Facebook group, since this information will be useful to anybody who uses the DMs Guild. Answers below are from OBS employees Jason Bolte and Matt McElroy.

  • Can a text brand be included? "...yes, text is still fine, as long it does not approach branded text." (I'm not sure what that means).
  • Is the logo mandatory? "We’re still heavily encouraging that people use that logo. It’s not mandatory at this time, but we will evaluate that policy as well"
  • Does this only apply to community created content, or to Con-Created Content? "It only applies to community created content"
  • Are the red "D&D sashes" OK? "I’d say they’re ok as long as they’re not used as branding. Namely, don’t try to emulate or make a spinoff of WotC logos. If you use the sashes as a byline, that should be fine (Written by xxx).... In my estimation, as long as the red sash is not used in a stylistic manner to promote a brand, it is fine. Once you start using it as a brand, then there are issues. If you don’t know if you’re using it correctly, then ask!"
  • Is this actually new? "There has never been a time were D&D logos have been allowed on the covers. The only logo that was allowed before today is the same one that was only allowed previously. What we’re attempting to make more clear is that logos like “Bob’s Gaming Company” are not allowed on covers."
  • Followup to above: "Basically the rules for community content have always been there. I was just bad at enforcing them and the FAQ wasn’t helpful, it actually made things more confusing. Adventurers League is not part of the community content program and has its own templates, rules and administration."
  • About Fantasy Grounds. "FG logo is allowed on FG titles, we’re going to add a section to the FAQ linking to the FG section of the FAQ and clarifying that."

Florian Emmerich asked about the product depicted below. OBS' Jason Bolte confirmed that "If you’re asking about the P. B. Publishing Presents part, then yes, that would be would qualify as what we don’t want on the cover".

225640.png





[FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT]
 

log in or register to remove this ad

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
The Guild is great for people doing book design as a hobby. But asking them to compete with people doing RPG book design as a living or as a business is problematic. The alternative to the DMsGuild isn't DriveThru or Kickstarter. It's people's fan blogs. It's Reddit. It's Pintrest. It's zero money.
After all, 5e and the OGL was around for eighteen months before the Guild but very few people took the plunge to self publishing on DriveThru or Kickstarter.

But isn't that the point? That the DMs Guild is meant to be a place for hobbyists to make a little bit of money for products they would have made anyway, but NOT a place for actual design businesses to peddle their wares? For actual for-profit design businesses they should be using things like the OGL, Kickstarter, and Patreon (like [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] does) so that they have more control of how and what they produce for their business? Including things like branding, logos, original art, cartography, what percentage of the money they bring in and the like?

I mean I can get that there's no real "intermediate" step between DMs Guild, and Kickstarter/OGL. A hobbyist gets the experience of trying publish using DMs Guild and tries to build a name for themselves... but the jump to then trying to run a Kickstarter in order to actually become a for-profit design house is a big one. There's no place in the middle where "the best of the best" can go to receive the same amount of viewership that DMs Guild grants them, while not needing as many up-front "fans" or name-recognition in order to successfully pull off an OGL/KS. So anything that keeps DMs Guild itself from becoming a more intermediate step for those writers is saddening and I can understand the frustration. But I don't think that's really what DMs Guild was ever meant to be used for.

But let's also be real here... if WotC was indeed worried about "the next Pathfinder", it's not from the DMs Guild pool of writers out there. Specifically because they don't have the cache to even be able to run a Kickstarter yet, let alone build a business capable of competing with WotC. Wizards would be looking at the 5E OGL businesses with actual full-blown publishing cred.... but the fact they actually opened 5E to the OGL in the first place tells us they aren't really concerned about those companies either.

I think [MENTION=16728]schnee[/MENTION] is probably closer the truth than any conspiracy theory that WotC is trying stomp out the uppity competition by not letting them brand their products. No offense... but that's giving DMs Guild hobbyist publishers way more credit than they probably deserve.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad

I think [MENTION=16728]schnee[/MENTION] is probably closer the truth than any conspiracy theory that WotC is trying stomp out the uppity competition by not letting them brand their products. No offense... but that's giving DMs Guild hobbyist publishers way more credit than they probably deserve.
Possible conversations at WotC:

"We need to cut down on legal costs related to DnD. What can we do? Hey, let's prevent 3pp from putting their logos on their covers! That way we don't spend time and money policing them! Great idea. Solved!"

versus

"We lost a lot of money with the OGL because our brand spun out of our control. This is why, despite being perpetual, we retracted use of the d2o brand. We gave rise to our brand's biggest competition from a company that didn't even exist until our DnD open license allowed them to exist. They trashed our market shares with our fourth edition, on the back of our own brand no less, and are still giving us a run for our money with this one. Let's make sure that doesn't happen again."

But, yeah. Sure.

It's all about the complications of having to oversee 3pp logos on covers. You know, a problem that hasn't actually reared its head yet, in this iteration or going back nearly 20 years to when the OGL was released.
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
Possible conversations at WotC:

"We need to cut down on legal costs related to DnD. What can we do? Hey, let's prevent 3pp from putting their logos on their covers! That way we don't spend time and money policing them! Great idea. Solved!"

versus

"We lost a lot of money with the OGL because our brand spun out of our control. This is why, despite being perpetual, we retracted use of the d2o brand. We gave rise to our brand's biggest competition from a company that didn't even exist until our DnD open license allowed them to exist. They trashed our market shares with our fourth edition, on the back of our own brand no less, and are still giving us a run for our money with this one. Let's make sure that doesn't happen again."

But, yeah. Sure.

It's all about the complications of having to oversee 3pp logos on covers. You know, a problem that hasn't actually reared its head yet, in this iteration or going back nearly 20 years to when the OGL was released.

It's not WotC's potential legal costs that are being cut down... it's DriveThru's.

And besides which... if WotC was really concerned about a new OGL company springing up to compete with them with 5E...

...WHY THE HELL DID THEY OPEN 5E TO THE OGL IN THE FIRST PLACE?!? :D

I mean come on... let's look at the situation through a prism of reality here. If WotC was truly afraid of a new company building themselves up to their level like a 3E company did, they wouldn't have offered up their same exact 3E model that allowed it to happen! They would have gone with their 4E model that few companies actually chose to use, thereby assuring that nobody else was going to compete with them.

Hey, I know you're p.o.d about this and are looking for someone to blame... but once you start going off the reservation looking for boogymen you make it harder for the rest of us to sympathize with you.
 

But isn't that the point? That the DMs Guild is meant to be a place for hobbyists to make a little bit of money for products they would have made anyway, but NOT a place for actual design businesses to peddle their wares? For actual for-profit design businesses they should be using things like the OGL, Kickstarter, and Patreon (like [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] does) so that they have more control of how and what they produce for their business? Including things like branding, logos, original art, cartography, what percentage of the money they bring in and the like?

I mean I can get that there's no real "intermediate" step between DMs Guild, and Kickstarter/OGL. A hobbyist gets the experience of trying publish using DMs Guild and tries to build a name for themselves... but the jump to then trying to run a Kickstarter in order to actually become a for-profit design house is a big one. There's no place in the middle where "the best of the best" can go to receive the same amount of viewership that DMs Guild grants them, while not needing as many up-front "fans" or name-recognition in order to successfully pull off an OGL/KS. So anything that keeps DMs Guild itself from becoming a more intermediate step for those writers is saddening and I can understand the frustration. But I don't think that's really what DMs Guild was ever meant to be used for.

But let's also be real here... if WotC was indeed worried about "the next Pathfinder", it's not from the DMs Guild pool of writers out there. Specifically because they don't have the cache to even be able to run a Kickstarter yet, let alone build a business capable of competing with WotC. Wizards would be looking at the 5E OGL businesses with actual full-blown publishing cred.... but the fact they actually opened 5E to the OGL in the first place tells us they aren't really concerned about those companies either.

I think [MENTION=16728]schnee[/MENTION] is probably closer the truth than any conspiracy theory that WotC is trying stomp out the uppity competition by not letting them brand their products. No offense... but that's giving DMs Guild hobbyist publishers way more credit than they probably deserve.
The problem is that, prior to this change, the DMsGuild was *close* to being that middle step. You get big on DMsGuild and maybe go Print-on-Demand there. Then, perhaps, jump to a small PDF Kickstarter.

I do think the DMsGuild isn't doing what WotC wanted. I don’t think they were expecting the shotgun product releases. Or 90% of the books not selling. I think they were expecting it to be the replacement for Dragon and Dungeon in terms of generating new talent, forgetting those magazine’s slush piles.

I also don’t think they need it anymore.
When it was planned in 2014 (or, likely, earlier) I imagine it was thought of as a way to find new talent and engage with the community. In that era before Twitter, and before the trend setters in gaming were streamers. There’s a reason they didn’t turn to any stars of the DMsGuild for the Adept program and instead looked to the Adventurer’s League, streamers, and a Podcaster. And D&D has grown large enough again that they did need to hire from the stable of established designers (Kate Welch for one, but also being able to get Pembleton Ward as a consultant.)
 



It's not WotC's potential legal costs that are being cut down... it's DriveThru's.

And besides which... if WotC was really concerned about a new OGL company springing up to compete with them with 5E...

...WHY THE HELL DID THEY OPEN 5E TO THE OGL IN THE FIRST PLACE?!? :D

I mean come on... let's look at the situation through a prism of reality here. If WotC was truly afraid of a new company building themselves up to their level like a 3E company did, they wouldn't have offered up their same exact 3E model that allowed it to happen! They would have gone with their 4E model that few companies actually chose to use, thereby assuring that nobody else was going to compete with them.

Hey, I know you're p.o.d about this and are looking for someone to blame... but once you start going off the reservation looking for boogymen you make it harder for the rest of us to sympathize with you.
Because its' not the OGL that is the risk. The OGL isn't the brand. It's the license.

Don't forget that there was the OGL and the d20 STL. The OGL is a perpetual license, but the d20 STL was WotC's brand control that was revoked. People can publish under the OGL still, but NO ONE can use the d20 STL. The d20 STL was how WotC leveraged its brand via 3pp.

Same thing here.

The OGL means nothing to the customers. It's purely a "behind the curtain" mechanism that allows 3pp access to WotC's playground.

The DnD logo is what's forward facing into the market. It's what the customers see. It's what the customers identify. It's what is synonymous with "role-playing" same as people say "go Xerox this" no matter your model of photocopier.

So no, this is NOT the exact same model as with 3e. There is no d20 STL.

There is simply a condition of "no 3pp branding" on the product's most visible space: the cover. If this was the issue you and schnee think it is, you'd also see detailed documentation about how 3pp logos needed to be represented within the product, which is the only place it's allowed. They'd have such documentation to otherwise mediate the legal costs and risks beyond that which you feel exists on the cover because the same arguments schnee puts forward regarding the cover would still absolutely hold for the interior were they true. Those risks wouldn't' simply disappear because you're now talking an interior page versus a cover.

But no such documentation exists. There is no control over 3pp branding beyond "not on the product's most customer-facing real estate."

This isn't me seeking a bogeyman. This is me, a professional marketer -- someone who actually educates other people about branding, recognizing a brand risk assessment and resulting action when I see it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

zedturtle

Jacob Rodgers
I do think the DMsGuild isn't doing what WotC wanted. I don’t think they were expecting the shotgun product releases. Or 90% of the books not selling. I think they were expecting it to be the replacement for Dragon and Dungeon in terms of generating new talent, forgetting those magazine’s slush piles.

I think it’s entirely opposite of that. I believe the DM’s Guild is what prevented a second ‘d20 glut’ because it directed all of the ‘wouldn't it be neat if...’ products into a silo that those in the know could check out, all while creating an environment in which it’s difficult to stand out. The low investment cost and lack of tricky rules to follow (compared to the OGL) has made it less likely that somebody with an idea goes to the trouble of traditional publishing routes.
 

Schmoe

Adventurer
Possible conversations at WotC:

"We need to cut down on legal costs related to DnD. What can we do? Hey, let's prevent 3pp from putting their logos on their covers! That way we don't spend time and money policing them! Great idea. Solved!"

versus

"We lost a lot of money with the OGL because our brand spun out of our control. This is why, despite being perpetual, we retracted use of the d2o brand. We gave rise to our brand's biggest competition from a company that didn't even exist until our DnD open license allowed them to exist. They trashed our market shares with our fourth edition, on the back of our own brand no less, and are still giving us a run for our money with this one. Let's make sure that doesn't happen again."

But, yeah. Sure.

It's all about the complications of having to oversee 3pp logos on covers. You know, a problem that hasn't actually reared its head yet, in this iteration or going back nearly 20 years to when the OGL was released.

I feel like my understanding of Paizo's history is a lot different than yours. My impression is that experience with the Dragon and Dungeon mags did far more to propel Paizo than any OGL vs. d20 quibbles.
 

Nylanfs

Adventurer
I feel like my understanding of Paizo's history is a lot different than yours. My impression is that experience with the Dragon and Dungeon mags did far more to propel Paizo than any OGL vs. d20 quibbles.
Don't forget that it took WotC FOREVER to come out with the srd and license for 4e. And the first license was DoA.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top