[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.

​

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


​

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.

("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.

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".

[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]​

 

[Mistwell]

Paizo was such an anomaly.
The core staff of writers from Paizo came from WotC, being pulled from the magazines when Paizo took over those departments. And then they built up a dedicated audience and really hooked people with the Adventure Path idea.
Then they launched their own AP when the magazines returned in house.

That is the topic we were discussing. Thank you for restating it. Paizo got noticed through 1) a licensing deal (Dungeon and Dragon) and then 2) the OGL. They did not get noticed through a forum like DMs Guild, which did not exist, and has never been particularly conducive to the sort of mass "official" recognition that comes with a magazine deal followed by free publishing under the OGL.

As for the rest of your points, I agree. Another Paizo is rather unlikely unless WOTC messes up 5e or 6e. But, in the unlikely chance there is to be a Next Piazo, it's even less likely to come through the DMs Guild, regardless of this corporate logo cover issue with DMs Guild. I think individual authors can use the DMs Guild to get noticed, but I just don't think small press companies will be able to use DMs Guild as a good launching point to build something like a Next Paizo, and that goes for with or without their corporate logos on the covers of the tiny thumbnails of the covers on DMsGuild. With rare exceptions (which don't include logos) DMs Guild is simply not built to promote company branding in general, other than the WOTC company.

 

[redrick]

Paizo was such an anomaly.

...

Making another Paizo is unlikely. Heck, even making another Monte Cook games or Kobold Press is unlikely, as those are built around a former designer. Which already kinda exist with Sasquatch Games and Schwab Entertainment. But none are nearly as big.
To really create another Paizo, WotC has to launch 6e and do a bad job of it...

A wise king knows to play the long game and nip those first borns off at the bud. A king can't be too careful!

 

[Jester David]

A wise king knows to play the long game and nip those first borns off at the bud. A king can't be too careful!

Except those side companies proved super useful when they launched 5e and needed other people to make the storyline adventure books.
WotC continues to have a good relation with several, and seem quite happy to promote Kobold Press’ latest Kickstarters.

 

[redrick]

Except those side companies proved super useful when they launched 5e and needed other people to make the storyline adventure books.
WotC continues to have a good relation with several, and seem quite happy to promote Kobold Press’ latest Kickstarters.

Once the potential usurper has grown too large to quietly drown, a king has to embrace different methods.

In all seriousness, I'm sure the events with Paizo are on Wizards' institutional memory, and I'm sure they factor into decisions Wizards makes when handling 3rd party licenses. Exactly how much, I have no idea. But just because we don't see a new Paizo on the horizon doesn't mean that Wizards isn't making decisions thinking about how the situation could change 5 or 10 years from now. I have no idea whether or not those are good decisions. Certainly, they seemed to have learned a lesson from 4e that getting broad-base buy-in before rolling out a new edition is incredibly important, and that seems to have been a good decision.

 

[Jester David]

Once the potential usurper has grown too large to quietly drown, a king has to embrace different methods.

In all seriousness, I'm sure the events with Paizo are on Wizards' institutional memory, and I'm sure they factor into decisions Wizards makes when handling 3rd party licenses. Exactly how much, I have no idea. But just because we don't see a new Paizo on the horizon doesn't mean that Wizards isn't making decisions thinking about how the situation could change 5 or 10 years from now. I have no idea whether or not those are good decisions. Certainly, they seemed to have learned a lesson from 4e that getting broad-base buy-in before rolling out a new edition is incredibly important, and that seems to have been a good decision.

But, again, Paizo was only a problem because WotC released an unpopular edition. The moment WotC released a better received edition, they crushed Paizo without even really trying.
As much as people talked about Paizo buying D&D and the like, Pathfinder was never in the same league as D&D.

If they want to avoid a reapeat, they don’t need to focus on other game companies or license partners. As you say, they need buy-in that a new edition is needed and do a slow rollout.

 

[AllegedObserver]

Logos and Covers

Makes sense. They don't want a repeat of the 3e era experience where WotC met competition by the ones "supposed" to play in their own walled garden.

This way, they put a lid on the possibility that some 3PP product lines become popular and well-known in their own right; making it harder to leverage your success into a stand-alone brand.

/Someone that quite likes the notion that your main motivator for producing fan material is simply the gratification of sharing, rather than monetization.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

I really don't see how this is going to change anything... and as a monthly customer of the DM's Guild, I don't see how thing s need to change. The restriction is to the front cover... not the entire product. I really think they are just trying to solidify the DM's Guild brand (which is fine), but do you really think people are going to stop buying products from Rogue Genius or Frog God just because their logo isn't on the over? Do they think we're that stupid? There isn't anything wrong with a certain amount of monetization... If I can afford it, why shouldn't I be able to buy it? There are plenty of options for everyone, from free on up.

 

[Yunru]

So any work I put on DMG is going to be X's Guide to Blah, or X's Tales of Blah, etc.
And X will just happen to be both a character created in world and the publishing name I wish to go under.
Your move, WotC.

 

[Morrus]

So any work I put on DMG is going to be X's Guide to Blah, or X's Tales of Blah, etc.
And X will just happen to be both a character created in world and the publishing name I wish to go under.
Your move, WotC.

You could call it “Mordenkainen’s Tome of Foes”! It’ll fit in well with Elminster’s Guide to Magic.

 

[M.T. Black]

So any work I put on DMG is going to be X's Guide to Blah, or X's Tales of Blah, etc.
And X will just happen to be both a character created in world and the publishing name I wish to go under.
Your move, WotC.

"John Smith's Guide to Monsters" would be a perfectly acceptable title. I'm not sure it would sell, though, unless John Smith was already an established creator.

 

[prosfilaes]

do you really think people are going to stop buying products from Rogue Genius or Frog God just because their logo isn't on the over?

Neither of which sell on the Dungeon Masters Guild, so that's not relevant. Even before this, Dungeon Masters Guild wasn't really inviting to third party publishers, who can't list their company name under publisher, which instead gets to be "Dungeon Masters Guild".