[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]​

 

[Shasarak]

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.

To me it sounds like you are underestimating the skill sets of Lisa Stevens and Erik Mona. Heck Lisa helped to create the company that bought DnD. Paizo got noticed because they do damn fine work.

 

[Mistwell]

To me it sounds like you are underestimating the skill sets of Lisa Stevens and Erik Mona. Heck Lisa helped to create the company that bought DnD. Paizo got noticed because they do damn fine work.

I am not. If they had just started the company without the thousands of existing subscriptions to the magazines and well known official recognition for years due to their direct production of D&D products for WOTC, they would not have succeeded nearly as well. Green Ronin for example makes "damn fine work" but they're never going to reach Paizo levels despite producing Paizo-level quality products. It's not JUST quality that wins - it's also marketing, and Paizo had a head start well above everyone else.

And I am not saying anything I don't think Paizo would say themselves, as they admit the magazines gave them a big jumping off point others did not have. They immediately turned thousands of subscriptions into subscriptions to their own products without any gap. Nobody else could do that.

 

[Morrus]

"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.

Gotta start somewhere. That book might not, but in a couple years the 10th John Smith book might.

 

[M.T. Black]

Gotta start somewhere. That book might not, but in a couple years the 10th John Smith book might.

Actually, I agree 100%. If you are a new writer trying to "make a name for yourself", you need to get your name in front of people. In big letters.

Part of my strategy over the last couple of years has been to deliberately develop "M.T. Black" as a brand. Whatever (relative) success I'm enjoying at the moment is due to this, in large part.

 

[delericho]

And I am not saying anything I don't think Paizo would say themselves, as they admit the magazines gave them a big jumping off point others did not have. They immediately turned thousands of subscriptions into subscriptions to their own products without any gap. Nobody else could do that.

Yep. Back when the magazines were cancelled, I had just taken out a long renewal to each. As a consequence, I was offered three choices: either a refund, or store credit at a slightly better rate, or a subscription to the first Pathfinders at a very good rate. I figured "why not?", and took the subscription, and am still a subscriber today (and that despite not actually playing Pathfinder until late last year, and concluding it's not for me).

Paizo still had a lot of work to do, but the ability to convert a big chunk of subscribers was a massive boon.

 

[prosfilaes]

To me it sounds like you are underestimating the skill sets of Lisa Stevens and Erik Mona. Heck Lisa helped to create the company that bought DnD. Paizo got noticed because they do damn fine work.

They also provided the right product at the right time. People wanted a new base for D20 gaming, and Pathfinder provided it. The closest anyone else really tried was Castles & Crusades, and it didn't seem to be aiming at the same target (not helped by the fact the target wasn't visible in 2004 when C&C came out.)

 

[Hussar]

To me it sounds like you are underestimating the skill sets of Lisa Stevens and Erik Mona. Heck Lisa helped to create the company that bought DnD. Paizo got noticed because they do damn fine work.

Just to add to the above point, Paizo got noticed LONG before they were an OGL producer. They had years of playing directly in WotC's backyard to build up a loyal following for their (very excellent) products. Which makes a HUGE difference. They could leverage those thousands of subscriptions into Pathfinder subs. Now, their continued success shows that yup, they make really good stuff. Absolutely. No question about it.

But, is their stuff really that much better than, say, Green Ronin's, or other OGL producers? To the point where they were actually competition for WotC? (Something no one else has even come close to being) I'd argue that without years of Dungeon and Dragon, Paizo would be a damn fine RPG company that was about the size of Green Ronin (or pick your favorite OGL producer). Being able to say "100% official D&D Content" on your books makes a big, big difference.

 

[Shasarak]

Just to add to the above point, Paizo got noticed LONG before they were an OGL producer. They had years of playing directly in WotC's backyard to build up a loyal following for their (very excellent) products. Which makes a HUGE difference. They could leverage those thousands of subscriptions into Pathfinder subs. Now, their continued success shows that yup, they make really good stuff. Absolutely. No question about it.

Brand only gets you so far, I mean how long did it take for the DnD brand to essentially collapse while Paizo was building their own brand?

But, is their stuff really that much better than, say, Green Ronin's, or other OGL producers? To the point where they were actually competition for WotC? (Something no one else has even come close to being) I'd argue that without years of Dungeon and Dragon, Paizo would be a damn fine RPG company that was about the size of Green Ronin (or pick your favorite OGL producer). Being able to say "100% official D&D Content" on your books makes a big, big difference.

I do not believe that it does. After losing the license to print Dragon/Dungeon then where does Paizo get to use this "100% official D&D Content" label? They dont, and if existing subscribers are not getting their money worth after their subscriptions lapse then they are not likely to resubscribe. I think it took the combined talents of Lisa, Erik and staff of course to make Paizo what it is now.

Green Ronin has produced some good award winning games over the years but maybe they just dont have the scope to do more then they have done, and that is no offense to Green Ronin whose record speaks for itself.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Another inane part of the "WotC needs to stomp down other companies so they don't become the next Paizo/Pathfinder!" idea is that in order for what happened with Paizo to happen again... WotC needs to be producing a product that a large swathe of the gamer populace doesn't actually want to play, so that someone else can step in and cater to them.

Which isn't happening. Most of the people who want to play "D&D" *are* playing it with the current edition that WotC is producing. So there's no huge group of "uncatered for" fans for some other company to produce for which would equal WotC's current level with 5E. And so long as WotC is producing 5E... no other company who ALSO produces 5E will ever reach WotC's level. Because they are at best a hanger-on to the main game already being played.

The only way another company producing 5E product could have possibly had a chance to reach WotC's level was to cater to the fans WotC wasn't... which were the fans that wanted new player options each and every week/month. Had a company done that... just flooded the market with quality 5E material in all the gaps WotC left in their schedule... maybe people would have latched onto them and would no longer care as much about the products WotC eventually did release every six months. But since no other company did that... there's no other "uncatered to" part of the fanbase a different company could fill a need for. And thus WotC will remain on top and have no such fears where they need to stomp down on other designers by actually thinking up new and dastardly plans like telling DriveThruRPG to tell their producers "No logos on the cover!" They have no need to waste their own time with something like that.

 

[Morrus]

These books use the font, and the red sash. They don't even bother with the DM's Guild logo. They look a lot like official products. They even have "Oriental Adventures" on the cover, which is the name of an older book.