[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

Shasarak

Banned
Banned
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.

It is still better the the previous display department in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Sunsword

Adventurer
The only part of the cover you see on DMs Guild is a teeny little thumbnail. You can't really see the logos anyway, unless you go out of your way to enlarge the image.

+1.

I'm seem to recall this being mentioned at launch. I think they just weren't dealing with it until it came u pin a place of wide discussion. I really don't know how WotC could be more helpful, sure they get a cut, but being able to create products with their IPs is HUGE.
 

EthanSental

Legend
Supporter
It is still better the the previous display department in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”

Worst than govt officials using Twitter as a policy platform....I somewhat kid but it's honestly irks me about Twitter for what some take as gospel like it's a public newsconference. I'm not a twitter fan for these type "news" release methods.
 

blakesha

Explorer
You can still put your logo on it. Back pack and in the "front page" of the document, just not on the cover (at least that is how I read the article)
 

timbannock

Adventurer
Supporter
You can still put your logo on it. Back pack and in the "front page" of the document, just not on the cover (at least that is how I read the article)

Correct, according to the FB thread. Personal logo can go inside and on back cover.

A note: if the logo is THAT big a deal for some people, do they really think folks are buying their products sight unseen? Clicking on the small or large Preview of any PDF-format product brings up a multi-page preview of the document. If there's anything beyond the cover in said preview, you've got that space to display the logo. I don't know the analytics on it, but I'd be a bit surprised if people are not clicking previews of fan/user-generated content to make sure they are getting what they want, and if you're name/brand is known, that info is in the Author/Writers/Artists section of each product page, too. Granted, that's behind a single click on the mobile interface, but the mobile interface of OBS is a giant opportunity all around anyway, so...
 

Eltab

Lord of the Hidden Layer
Whether DMsG likes it or not, they have figuratively slammed their door in peoples' face, and made them feel unwelcomed / unappreciated.

When you open up a forum to authors, you have to expect the authors to want / try / succeed in advertising their presence and (we hope) the quality of their work.

OTOH, a policy that says "You cannot use other folks' logos" would make eminent good sense.
There is no reason for me to copycat M.T. Black -evoking stylistics and expect nobody to notice or get upset.
 


FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
Exactly my point. The amount of work OBS has to do in policing all the garbage goes down, which to me is a win.



That's a ridiculous extreme. I have the privilege to use their IP, their marketing, and their selling channel to publish the kind of thing I've been doing with my friends for 35 years for free. I'm making 50% off that stuff through no small amount of their hard work; I think I can obey a rule or two about covers and try pretty hard not to put porn in whatever I publish on their site ;-P

I just love when I make a point completely opposite of what someone just said and they come back saying they agree with me and what I said agreed with them.
 

DM Howard

Explorer
I can't say that I agree with this, but WotC/OBS is free to dictate as they will. If I ever come up with a piece worth publishing, it will probably go to EN5IDER. They can play games and dodge the fact that they are restricting the rights of creators to "sign" their own work, fair enough. Turn about it fair play.

The Forgotten Realms is great, but I'm interested to see how many publishers might find it not worth the effort.

Publishing a piece of work, regardless of the IP takes work, I wouldn't term that as "playing". It seems that WotC disagrees, and only their play is worth the price of full admission.

I don't know, I'm rambling now! :p
 


Remove ads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top