[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.

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]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad

Yunru

Banned
Banned
Well, I know now to use a consistent naming convention for any work I publish. Can't claim it's a brand if it's just part of the title of the material.

Or, y'know, not use DMsGuild and be fine.

Either works (but I don't so either happening is very unlikely :p).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Yunru

Banned
Banned
But I also lose access to that IP, all of that specific community content, and the marketing power of an IP that is world-renowned.
Except you still have "all of that specific community content" as much as you would have on DMsGuild. And that there's no marketing power to DMsGuild beyond their elite.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
I see how you are devaluing what they bring to this arrangement, though

You most certainly do not, because I have ventured no value judgement on WotC’s part of the arrangement whatsoever. Indeed, I have no particular opinion on the subject, and wouldn’t venture such a valuation even if asked.

The only thing I’ve said is that WotC/OBS does not owe you nothing, something with which you seem to vehemently disagree.
 

timbannock

Adventurer
Supporter
Except you still have "all of that specific community content" as much as you would have on DMsGuild.

Not according to the agreement. If I publish on DMsGuild, I can use any and all content also already published on the Guild (in some form) within my work. For example, I can use some or even most of the monsters from Critter Compendium in my DMsGuild adventures, or build characters with the Chult Player's Guide. I can't do that anywhere else.

And that there's no marketing power to DMsGuild beyond their elite.

Also wrong: non-Adept releases have been promoted in Dragon+ and spoken about in several social media posts by people with the last names Mearls, Perkins, and Crawford. I don't see them doing the same with any sort of regularity for DriveThru (non-DMsGuild) 5E-related releases.
 

timbannock

Adventurer
Supporter
You most certainly do not, because I have ventured no value judgement on WotC’s part of the arrangement whatsoever. Indeed, I have no particular opinion on the subject, and wouldn’t venture such a valuation even if asked.

The only thing I’ve said is that WotC/OBS does not owe you nothing, something with which you seem to vehemently disagree.

The don't owe any of us the existence of DMsGuild, or the ability to publish using their IP, is what I mean. Sorry if you want to split hairs, I wasn't trying to use business or legal speak to cover every possible use of "they don't me anything," I was speaking colloquially of the fact that they don't owe me a business arrangement in the first place.

I get my 50%. Until that changes, I'm getting paid just fine and am happy with the arrangement.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
The don't owe any of us the existence of DMsGuild, or the ability to publish using their IP, is what I mean. Sorry if you want to split hairs, I wasn't trying to use business or legal speak to cover every possible use of "they don't me anything," I was speaking colloquially of the fact that they don't owe me a business arrangement in the first place.

It's not "splitting hairs". It's literally not at all what you said, or what I replied to.

What an odd conversation.
 

S

Sunseeker

Guest
I get what WOTC is doing here. They want their market to be a place where people are selling products ostensibly under the D&D name. It's not like a swap meet here. It's WOTC saying "Yes it's okay for you to sell this in our store." They also don't want their platform being used to promote someone else's potentially competing business.

But I'd argue this is wholly unnecessary.
 

timbannock

Adventurer
Supporter
It's not "splitting hairs". It's literally not at all what you said, or what I replied to.

What an odd conversation.

That makes two of us. I'm happy to hear a better explanation of what you were referring to, so we can speak about the same thing. I'm not trying to offend anyone, or change the subject.

My view is that they (OBS/WOTC) don't owe us the existence of the DMsGuild. Yet here it is, and they let us play in it with minimal rules, plus we get to make money doing so. We get tons of resources and manpower behind that entire setup. IMHO the rules they seek to enforce surrounding this entire thing are not onerous.

That is the totality of my post: an opinion based on the situation as I see it. It is a response to the other opinions. It doesn't seek to negate or justify, it's just a statement, like many other posts here.

If we're discussing something else, lay it on me!
 

Well, I know now to use a consistent naming convention for any work I publish. Can't claim it's a brand if it's just part of the title of the material.

Or, y'know, not use DMsGuild and be fine.

Either works (but I don't so either happening is very unlikely :p).

Or, in hindsight, use your name as your "Logo" for your publishing company. Or setup a username that is your publishing name.

I mean look at M.T. Black. That is his logo and publishing company name. He doesn't author everything he publishes himself. But that's the "name" or "logo" that he puts on his covers, and with this rule there is no way to tell him he can't put it on his covers. (Note, I like MT, so please don't take this as any negative on what he has done, I think it's completely above board and alid, etc).

Everyone will just have to turn their names into their logos.

It does bum me out though because I was using a logo to indicate a campaign series, so people would know modules were related. But hey, now that "image" will just have to become or be the cover itself.

As for how this was rolled out, really bad. I mean don't they have a way to send an email out to all the authors? Ah, I won't bother commenting further on this part.
 


Remove ads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top