[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

umbergerba

God doesn't play dice with the universe, gamers do
50/50 shared commission should mean 50/50 visibility on the cover. Meaning, they should make the DMG logo mandatory (not that unreasonable), BUT also allow the author's logo ... after all, the author did ALL the hard work! This ruling is very unfair, and I will not be publishing on DMG! They are only offering two campaign worlds anyway, neither of which I need to publish under. I will simply alter the material to be non-world specific and keep the majority of the commission and still publish on DriveThru ... under my own logo. Problem solved!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

happyhermit

Adventurer
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. ...

Hussar, I have seen that repeated a few times in different places, but the numbers I looked at all seemed to show that D&D shared and then lost it's spot some time before 5e was announced and/or they stopped publishing 4e books (as early as mid-late 2010).

Not that this has much to do with DMs Guild, mind you.
 


Hussar

Legend
Apple was very close to going bankrupt in the 90s, before Microsoft bailed them out...

The problem with the comparison is that, other than a couple of blips over the years, D&D has been very much the 600 pound gorilla in the hobby. Sure, they need to keep doing good stuff, fine. But, the notion that there really has ever been any real competition in the gaming industry just doesn't hold much water IMO. I mean, heck, Pathfinder IS D&D. Or, close enough that it makes nearly no difference. So, the only time D&D hasn't been on top is a couple of quarters back in the 90's.

Or, to put it another way, D&D has been on the top of the heap for about 99% of the entire history of the hobby. For all intents and purposes, D&D IS the hobby.
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
I will simply alter the material to be non-world specific and keep the majority of the commission and still publish on DriveThru ... under my own logo. Problem solved!

If you think you can sell more copies of your work that way, great. Although I'd be curious to see you post it both ways... on a straight DriveThru with a logo on the cover, and then through DMsGuild without the logo (but you're in a location where people actually go for their D&D material.) I wonder which way does better for you?

That's the thing... anyone who can make and sell product elsewhere (or get paid for product elsewhere through the various patronage sites) probably should be. Less restrictions, higher percentage. The only problem is you have to do more marketing of both yourself and your product to get people to find it. DMsGuild has more restrictions, and lower percentage, but its the central D&D fan product location so more people are liable to come across it even just randomly as they browse the site, and it has all the back-end support for payment and distribution. Each person has to decide what is more important to them and publish accordingly.
 

prosfilaes

Adventurer
The problem with the comparison is that, other than a couple of blips over the years, D&D has been very much the 600 pound gorilla in the hobby. Sure, they need to keep doing good stuff, fine. But, the notion that there really has ever been any real competition in the gaming industry just doesn't hold much water IMO. I mean, heck, Pathfinder IS D&D. Or, close enough that it makes nearly no difference. So, the only time D&D hasn't been on top is a couple of quarters back in the 90's.

Or, to put it another way, D&D has been on the top of the heap for about 99% of the entire history of the hobby. For all intents and purposes, D&D IS the hobby.

First place, if you want to say Pathfinder is D&D, then you're changing the rules of the game. Then I have to wonder if MacOS X really is different from Windows; the difference between Windows 1 (or even 3.1) and 10 is far greater than the differences between Windows 10 and MacOS X. We're looking at fairly classic WIMP (windows, icons, mouse pointer) interfaces either way, with Windows 8 being the outlier.

Even without that question, Windows has never really been threatened by Macs. Sure, 10, 20% of the population may use alternate operating systems, but it's been the top of the heap since Windows 3.1. If you include MS-DOS, it's been there since the dominance of the IBM PC around 1984. The only thing that's threatening Windows dominance is if you count smartphone OSes, in which Android is beating it.

So actually I think the comparison between Windows and D&D is pretty close.
 

Hussar

Legend
First place, if you want to say Pathfinder is D&D, then you're changing the rules of the game. Then I have to wonder if MacOS X really is different from Windows; the difference between Windows 1 (or even 3.1) and 10 is far greater than the differences between Windows 10 and MacOS X. We're looking at fairly classic WIMP (windows, icons, mouse pointer) interfaces either way, with Windows 8 being the outlier.

Even without that question, Windows has never really been threatened by Macs. Sure, 10, 20% of the population may use alternate operating systems, but it's been the top of the heap since Windows 3.1. If you include MS-DOS, it's been there since the dominance of the IBM PC around 1984. The only thing that's threatening Windows dominance is if you count smartphone OSes, in which Android is beating it.

So actually I think the comparison between Windows and D&D is pretty close.

True. I'd say the comparison between Windows and D&D is pretty close. But, the original comparison was Apple phones and Blackberry.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top