[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]​

 

[LordEntrails]

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.

Yep, lets see how long till they are taken down.

 

[LordEntrails]

Yep, lets see how long till they are taken down.

nvm, they were posted before the rules changed.

 

[prosfilaes]

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).

Something no one else has even come close to being? White Wolf seems to have been the market leader at one point. In the period after WotC bought TSR, Paizo has been the only company that has challenged WotC, but I don't believe that's surprising in markets with as much lock-in as RPGs. They tend to have long periods of stasis in the leading players.

Without years of Dungeon and Dragon, Paizo wouldn't exist; that's how and why the company was created. Running counterfactuals is hard, but I see someone producing a solid 3.75 and becoming a major player. I could see them solidly beating D&D, though that would be more because Hasbro virtually or actually shelved D&D due to low sales without a major competitor establishing the value of the market.

 

[Hussar]

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?

It took a couple of years AND WotC stopping printing any books.

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.

You're missing the point. Paizo got it's subscribers originally because of the 100% Official Content label. Without that, what differentiates Paizo from anyone else? Remember, Paizo got to the size it was before Pathfinder was even a gleam in anyone's eye. Pathfinder saved Paizo, but, it certainly didn't make it.

Something no one else has even come close to being? White Wolf seems to have been the market leader at one point. In the period after WotC bought TSR, Paizo has been the only company that has challenged WotC, but I don't believe that's surprising in markets with as much lock-in as RPGs. They tend to have long periods of stasis in the leading players.

Without years of Dungeon and Dragon, Paizo wouldn't exist; that's how and why the company was created. Running counterfactuals is hard, but I see someone producing a solid 3.75 and becoming a major player. I could see them solidly beating D&D, though that would be more because Hasbro virtually or actually shelved D&D due to low sales without a major competitor establishing the value of the market.

Yup, White Wolf managed to be top dog (lupine?) for a bit in the early 90's. Couple of years maybe. So, out of the 40 (ish) years that D&D has been in print, they've not been top dog for what, 3 years? 4 maybe? And most of those years, they weren't publishing anything.

The idea that there is any real competition in the RPG market is kinda ignoring history. There's D&D and then there's everyone else.

 

[prosfilaes]

Yup, White Wolf managed to be top dog (lupine?) for a bit in the early 90's. Couple of years maybe. So, out of the 40 (ish) years that D&D has been in print, they've not been top dog for what, 3 years? 4 maybe? And most of those years, they weren't publishing anything.

D&D was only being beat when it wasn't sucking so bad its owners couldn't afford to publish anything. That sounds credible. TSR could have easily taken D&D down with them (someone would have bought it, like someone bought PanAm; fly PanAm recently?), and Hasbro stopping producing 4E was a retreat from battle with Pathfinder. In both cases, part of the revival was skillful handling to pull D&D back from the brink; nothing inevitable about it.

The idea that there is any real competition in the RPG market is kinda ignoring history. There's D&D and then there's everyone else.

You could use that argument against Apple fans, too. BlackBerry fans probably did. I don't think Hasbro is so complacent about the matter.

 

[Hussar]

D&D was only being beat when it wasn't sucking so bad its owners couldn't afford to publish anything. That sounds credible. TSR could have easily taken D&D down with them (someone would have bought it, like someone bought PanAm; fly PanAm recently?), and Hasbro stopping producing 4E was a retreat from battle with Pathfinder. In both cases, part of the revival was skillful handling to pull D&D back from the brink; nothing inevitable about it.



You could use that argument against Apple fans, too. BlackBerry fans probably did. I don't think Hasbro is so complacent about the matter.

That's one way to spin it. The other is that the only time anyone managed to beat out WotC in RPG's is when WotC stopped publishing books. Granted, Paizo did catch up just before the end there, that's true, but, this really was the tail end of 4e, the least popular edition ever. So, to put it another way, the only time in recent history anyone managed to be a credible competitor is when WotC badly mismanaged an edition and stopped publishing. White Wolf did pull ahead in the early 90's, but, that wasn't so much TSR falling down, as just a measure of how well Vampire was doing. After all, it would be years later before TSR finally shut its doors and by that time, it had been the #1 RPG for five or six years.

Let's not forget, when TSR went bankrupt, so were pretty much every other RPG publishing company. FASA was long gone, White Wolf was heading out the door, who else was there in the late 90's?

WotC's competition isn't other RPG companies. It's things like vidoe games and other activities that make RPG's less attractive.

 

[Morrus]

nvm, they were posted before the rules changed.

They don’t break the rules. There’s no creator logo on them. That was my point.

 

[Zardnaar]

In Paizo's own words they got 2/3rds of the Dragon and Dungeon subscribers. They got around 4 million 2009 and climbed to 12.7 in 2012. 2010 was when they probably surpassed 4E according to Lisa, 2011 it was basically undisputed.

So at their height they were close to 50 percent of 5E based on size of rpg market estimates they sold similar to 3.5 which was not a major seller by D&D standards (it's why they rushed 4E).

WoTC was punch drunk with 3.0. 3.5 was a cash grab, 4E tried but did even worse than 3.5.

 

[prosfilaes]

So, to put it another way, the only time in recent history anyone managed to be a credible competitor is when WotC badly mismanaged an edition and stopped publishing. White Wolf did pull ahead in the early 90's, but, that wasn't so much TSR falling down, as just a measure of how well Vampire was doing.

So, in one case it doesn't matter because it was a screw-up of D&D's owners, and in the other it doesn't matter because it was the competitor's success. There's three reasons businesses stop being on top; they stop doing well, their opponents start doing better, and happens (war, terrorism, hurricanes). You've said everything but " happens" is moot.

Let's not forget, when TSR went bankrupt, so were pretty much every other RPG publishing company. ... White Wolf was heading out the door,

That does not accord with my memory at all. TSR was sold in 1997, the same year WW published 35 books. In 1998, they made some changes to account for the problems of the publishing industry at the time, but that's not heading out the door. They sold to CCP in 2006; since they released books every month in 2006 and 2007 except Dec. 2006, they weren't nearly in the dire straits that TSR was. And that was nine years later.

WotC's competition isn't other RPG companies. It's things like vidoe games and other activities that make RPG's less attractive.

IBM was on top of the computer industry for 30 years, basically since they rolled out some of the earliest computers in 1952. And then one day they weren't, and 40 years from their first computer they posted the largest loss in American corporate history. Hasbro knows this; I'd be surprised if every business major in the world didn't have a college lecture using that as an example of how a company could have it all and lose it.

Also, from Hasbro's perspective, they can deal with vagaries in the RPG market. They have a lot of swing properties, properties that go fallow for a while until it's time to bring them back. But Pathfinder could undercut that; even if RPGs go down, they don't want to try and bring D&D back ten years later and hear "Elminster? The RPG wizard guy? Oh, oh, you mean Ezren!"

 

[Hussar]

In Paizo's own words they got 2/3rds of the Dragon and Dungeon subscribers. They got around 4 million 2009 and climbed to 12.7 in 2012. 2010 was when they probably surpassed 4E according to Lisa, 2011 it was basically undisputed.

So at their height they were close to 50 percent of 5E based on size of rpg market estimates they sold similar to 3.5 which was not a major seller by D&D standards (it's why they rushed 4E).

WoTC was punch drunk with 3.0. 3.5 was a cash grab, 4E tried but did even worse than 3.5.

Sorry, I'm not quite following your numbers here. 4 million what in 2009? Dungeon and Dragon subscribers? Or players?

I'm thinking your numbers are very off. Dungeon and Dragon, in the later years, had about 50000 subscribers total between the two magazines. We know this because the subscription numbers had to be published once per year in the magazines by American law.

And, I'm pretty sure that Pathfinder has never had 12.7 million players.

Or do you mean dollars? That would actually jive pretty well with other numbers. The RPG market in 2012 was about 15 million, so, maybe? After all Paizo was pretty much the playing field that year.