[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

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
I may well try OGL in the future, but if I enjoy success there it will probably be because I've built up a fan base on the DMs Guild.

Oh, for sure. Whatever your choice of outlet, you have to work to build customers. There's no getting round that, whatever you do.

For me, crowdfunding is *so* useful. Patreon and Kickstarter have both been very good to us.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I've worked in publishing off and on for 25+ years, as a designer, people manager, and art director. So, hopefully, what I say here can clear some stuff up for most (but knowing this place nothing will ever satisfy a few).

**The Rest snipped to save space**
I disagree with your theory for one simple reason:

The logo on the cover is incidental to the copyright problems that arise from WotC's various licenses. Anyone remember one publisher or product that got into trouble because of how it used the logo on an OGL product, for instance?

Me neither.

How about companies that misused the SRD, WotC's IP, or screwed up their OGL's section 15?

Yep, I remember products getting pulled and destroyed because of that. At least one publisher sank because of it.

Considering the depth with which the DMG lets raw, neophyte fans with no publishing skills play with WotC's IP compared to the OGL and use of the SRD, there are WAY more complex, risky aspects to the license that still require WotC's legal oversight that they'd bother with this sort of step over a concern for logo size and placement.

It kinda sucks, sure, but it's a natural consequence of how things are.
Sure it is. But it's far more likely a natural consequence of the brand damage and brand risk lessons learned with the OGL. DnD's biggest competitor (i.e., Pathfinder) remains a threatening consequence of that license's branding allowances despite WotC itself haven given up the OGL years ago.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
The question I was asking there - or the suggestion I was making, I guess - was whether DMsG + Elminster > Kickstarter. I’d be inclined to wager no, but obviously I don’t know your profit on that book.
I don't see how that's the main question. Either use DMsG and play by WotC's rules, or do not.

(Obviously I can see why it is *a* question, especially for content creators, but now I'm assuming we're still discussing in the context of the new rules)

If they dropped the exclusivity requirement, I'd be very tempted to Kickstarter a book and then put it on DMsG to see what happened. It would be a killer combo getting the benefit of both platforms.
That is obviously not going to happen, since then they would effectively have relinquished their IP.

If you could sell "Elminster's Whatev's" on a platform where you retain 100% of the profit, who in their right mind would ever use DMsG...
 


Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
That is obviously not going to happen, since then they would effectively have relinquished their IP.

If you could sell "Elminster's Whatev's" on a platform where you retain 100% of the profit, who in their right mind would ever use DMsG...

Sure. I totally get it, and wouldn't expect them to let people do that. The flip side of it is it makes it hard to crowdfunding a good project and then put it on DMsG.
 

WOTC likes to present itself as a creative-run company, but you can feel the rooms full of lawyers and brand managers in every goddamned thing they do. I don't like being forced to think like a corporation to make sense of my hobby. They're great at game mechanics, but I miss the pre-Hasbro days a lot.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
I've worked in publishing off and on for 25+ years, as a designer, people manager, and art director. So, hopefully, what I say here can clear some stuff up for most (but knowing this place nothing will ever satisfy a few).

If my experience holds true, this is almost entirely about reducing their burden of policing their products for ignorant designers/content submitters who will get them into trouble with copyright infringement. And there's a decent chance it's even being driven by Wizards' legal team based on their legal exposure via proxy.

They are trying to create an automated, turn-key system with as few touch points as possible that require active human intervention. They also want to reduce the burden on 'expert' employees, people who have a lot of training, cost a lot of money, and who are a scarce resource that needs to focus on things that have the most bang for buck for the company.

You know who's really expensive? A Lawyer. Especially one that has a narrow skill set that isn't necessary in running the business day to day, and must be kept on retainer, or paid for even when they're not being used.

You know what screws up an automated turn-key system, in a way that requires expensive people? Fending off copyright claims, cease-and-desist orders, or lawsuits resulting from content creators using copyright-infringing logos on material that they are wholly responsible for.

So, here's the scenario:

Content Submitter A submits their module. The cover has their logo next to the JG logo. Here's the nightmare scenarios they are trying to avoid:

  • That logo is done in exactly the same font as the D&D logo, with the same ampersand, attempting to look official
  • That logo is a knock-off of any number of previous D&D edition logos
  • That logo uses art that was not granted permission to use, probably snaked from a Google Images search
  • I could go on, but you get the point.

The distinction between having 'text' of a company name and a 'text logo' of that same name is really telling. It means that a company name in a bog-standard, commercially available font (like Helvetica, Papyrus *ugh*, etcetera) doesn't worry them, but someone using a logo with letter forms specifically designed to stand out or function as a single piece (like the official D&D logo with the ampersand - with a font that is either custom or extensively tweaked). They really want to avoid anything on the cover that can be construed as a logo other than one they control.

It's obvious they don't have the staff or the bandwidth to handle this stuff, because they haven't even properly worked through all their materials to catch the inconsistencies in their policies even to this point. And having to deal with even a few of these can be brutal to the bottom line.

It gets worse because companies *have* to protect their brands, and they are getting increasingly hair-triggered about it because the process is getting so much easier to do. It's also cheap for them to act on potential 'false positives' - it's just an automated letter - so many firms send out letters to situations that meet a relatively low standard of possible infringement.

It's going to get even worse, too. Look at how YouTube automates the process of copyright challenges entirely. Machine learning is making image recognition trivial. It's also poised to eliminate a huge number of positions of people in the legal world, because law itself is about creating a replicable logic flow and process, and once image recognition gets hooked up to a legal bot that can send out an infringement notice at the cost of pennies, and the cost to the company that responds has to measure that time spent in three-digit dollars per hour - it's going to get crazy.

So, IMO, this is a good policy for them. They're not executing on it as well as the could have, but IMO that just signifies the necessity of them to do this for their own good. They can't afford to have people good enough to evaluate copyright claims on staff to handle them, even if they did it wouldn't be worth fighting it out, so they're punting, and this is the most efficient way to eliminate that huge risk.

It kinda sucks, sure, but it's a natural consequence of how things are.

Removing logos would eliminate their risk. Moving the logos to a less apparent place (which is what is being advocated for) at most mitigates the risk of it being found.
 


But if you had made “Garglrthimp’s Guide to Magic” and funded/marketer it using Kickstarter and the OGL, you could have made an initial sum, and then be selling it on DTRPG, Amazon, and other places (and have it print on demand, retain all rights, pay less commission, no exclusivity limits, etc).

The question I was asking there - or the suggestion I was making, I guess - was whether DMsG + Elminster > Kickstarter. I’d be inclined to wager no, but obviously I don’t know your profit on that book.

I guess you could answer that question better than me, since you have access to your figures and can see public Kickstarter figures, whereas I only have one of those figures. But then, A Touch of Class is doing pretty well on Amazon and DTRPG, and did very well on Kickstarter. I would be surprised if it could have done nearly as well for us on DMsG, even if we’d put some Realms IP in/on it.

Have you considered a Kickstarted book as a trial? It would be interesting to see how it worked for you.

If they dropped the exclusivity requirement, I'd be very tempted to Kickstarter a book and then put it on DMsG to see what happened. It would be a killer combo getting the benefit of both platforms.
Kickstarter is great if you have an audience already and a well known name. If people know you and are willing to give you money on a promise of future content.
If you don't have that reputation, then Kickstarter will not be better. Because people aren't going to spend money on that gamble.

Only 11.6% of creators on the DMsGuild have a product that has the Copper Seller medal. Which equates with $50 sales. 88.4% of books on the DMsGuild have sold fewer than 50 copies. And only 2% have sold over 500 copies, which is roughly 300 books. Most people are not well known enough to warrant people giving money to immediately receive their work, let alone in six months.

From the numbers [MENTION=6782171]M.T. Black[/MENTION] gives, his book has sold <2000 copies. Which is far fewer than the 2,454 of even a small Kickstarter like Touch of Class. Is it realistic that he would have sold more copies by stripping out Elminster and not giving it to people immediately?

He would have made more money per sale going through DriveThru where he'd be making that extra 15% of each sale, that's $4000, which is roughly 400 sales. However, if 400 fewer people had noticed the book because it was mixed it with all the other RPGs and/or didn't manage to crack the sales chart (competing against Genesys, Stars Without Numbers, Vampire, Blades in the Dark, Traveller, Flash Gordon, and Star Trek) then he would have paradoxically made less money with more royalties.

I'm fairly successful on the Guild: 5 platinum products, 1 gold, 2 electrum, 4 silver, and 2 copper copper. But ignoring a few books with high sales number due to a bungle sale, my highest selling book has moved a little over a thousand copies. Spread out over a couple years. I have zero doubts if I attempted to Kickstart a book, I'd be super lucky to get a few hundred backers.
I can also compare sales to my DriveThru product, which is only silver despite being on that site for two years longer than anything on the Guild.

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.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
Kickstarter is great if you have an audience already and a well known name. If people know you and are willing to give you money on a promise of future content.
If you don't have that reputation, then Kickstarter will not be better. Because people aren't going to spend money on that gamble.

I've come to dread your implied "Yes, buts...."

Anyway, sure. That statement is true. It's true of most places.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top