[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

Von Ether

Legend
So text as art for logos is bad, but a consistent choice of off the shelf font for a company name is good. Cool.

(From a dude who is doing okay on a non-WotC Community Content Creator Program and wonders what's coming down the pike.)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Von Ether

Legend
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.

So is this a WotC thing or a OBS thing that is asking publishers to do?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Kabouter Games

Explorer
So text as art for logos is bad, but a consistent choice of off the shelf font for a company name is good. Cool.

Yeah. Good luck enforcing it. OH WAIT - they've admitted they don't have the ability to enforce it anyway. :erm:

(From a dude who is doing okay on a non-WotC Community Content Creator Program and wonders what's coming down the pike.)

I share that concern.

So is this a WotC thing or a OBS thing that is asking publishers to do?

That is unclear. Nobody has answered that question. I don't know if that question has been asked. There's been no activity on that thread today.
 

delericho

Legend
So is this a WotC thing or a OBS thing that is asking publishers to do?

Sounds like it's a OBS thing, partly so they can have consistent rules over all their third-party shops (where the lowest common denominator would suggest "no logos" as they way to go), and partly out of fear of lawsuits due to people misusing logos (or derivative logos). Since OBS don't have the resources to check all the logos in use, it's safer for them just to ban them.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
Well, I'm sure they could come up with a worse policy, if they really tried. I doubt they could come up with a worse way of announcing it, though.
Know what? You're entirely right.

The "it was always supposed to be like this" is a weasely reply.

They should just come out and say it: "we don't want you to be anything other than near faceless contributors to our game." I would respect that honesty.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app
 

delericho

Legend
Know what? You're entirely right.

The "it was always supposed to be like this" is a weasely reply.

They should just come out and say it: "we don't want you to be anything other than near faceless contributors to our game." I would respect that honesty.

I was thinking more of the bit in the OP that says "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." I'm hard pressed to think of a worse method of announcing a policy than that.
 

jgsugden

Legend
I have about 20 things sitting around I was going to put on the guild this spring when I had a week off work. I'm getting the sense that I need to allocate more time to figure out all the rules, formatting, sacrifices and rituals required...
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
It's interesting seeing reactions for DM's Guild changes. I stayed clear of this one, but I did support WotC's OGL, d20 STL and 4E GSL. It feels very similar in terms of the conversations going on around these licenses.

If I did have any advice, having been publishing third party 3E and 4E products when those license structures were pulled, I'd asuggest that DMsG authors plan for the long term, and to not assume that DMsG will be around forever. Consider moving to the OGL as a long-term strategy.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
Sounds like it's a OBS thing, partly so they can have consistent rules over all their third-party shops (where the lowest common denominator would suggest "no logos" as they way to go), and partly out of fear of lawsuits due to people misusing logos (or derivative logos). Since OBS don't have the resources to check all the logos in use, it's safer for them just to ban them.

I have one of those third party shops (the WOIN Community Publishing Syndicate). There is no overarching logo policy for these fan publishing programs.
 

Kabouter Games

Explorer
I have about 20 things sitting around I was going to put on the guild this spring when I had a week off work. I'm getting the sense that I need to allocate more time to figure out all the rules, formatting, sacrifices and rituals required...

It's really not that hard. This is the first real controversy that's come up since I started publishing on the Guild 18 months ago. That's a pretty good track record, all things considered.

Publishing on the Guild is remarkably easy. They don't care about formatting, because the Guild doesn't do print on demand. You get to use ALL the 5e rules, right down to stat blocks out of the Monster Manual. You can use Wizards IP that's forbidden in the OGL, like the words "beholder" and "Mordenkainen." And you can use Forgotten Realms and Ravenloft IP without restriction: Want to have adventurers team up with Elminster and Drizzt to battle Strahd after Castle Ravenloft crashes into Myth Drannor? Go ahead. Write that adventure. You can sell that on the Guild. But you can't anywhere else.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top