[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]​

 

[delericho]

I have one of those third party shops (the WOIN Community Publishing Syndicate). There is no overarching logo policy for these fan publishing programs.

I'm basing that on their comment:

"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."

I can't comment on how that matches up with reality, though.

 

[Morrus]

I'm basing that on their comment:

"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."

I can't comment on how that matches up with reality, though.

That comment does not reflect the terms for the WCPS, so I don’t know what that means. It’s certainly not a policy which crosses all the CC platforms.

 

[timbannock]

IMHO,

WOTC and OBS don't owe us authors anything, so making covers consistently show the DMsGuild logo (not yet a requirement, but a "strong recommendation" at this time) and an author name and no other branding is fine with me. We signed up to play in their playground, and they've opened it ALL to us authors: we can use the entirety of D&D IP with only the smallest exceptions (if you think FR-specific limits us, you need to see some of the amazing workarounds people have made).

I realize it will effect some people unduly, but I also recall them saying this is a "going forward" rule for the time being. It's not like every branded thing by PB Publishing is getting taken down tomorrow. Small consolation, I know, but still: it's their playground we're playing in, and this seems a minor issue at most even to those folks who do have branding on their products.

YMMV

 

[FrogReaver]

IMHO,

WOTC and OBS don't owe us authors anything, so making covers consistently show the DMsGuild logo (not yet a requirement, but a "strong recommendation" at this time) and an author name and no other branding is fine with me. We signed up to play in their playground, and they've opened it ALL to us authors: we can use the entirety of D&D IP with only the smallest exceptions (if you think FR-specific limits us, you need to see some of the amazing workarounds people have made).

I realize it will effect some people unduly, but I also recall them saying this is a "going forward" rule for the time being. It's not like every branded thing by PB Publishing is getting taken down tomorrow. Small consolation, I know, but still: it's their playground we're playing in, and this seems a minor issue at most even to those folks who do have branding on their products.

YMMV

Why such the fuss by dms guild over such a minor issue?

 

[Morrus]

WOTC and OBS don't owe us authors anything,

Nonsense. They are taking a 50% royalty from your work. Of course they owe you something. You’re not an indentured servant!

 

[J.L. Duncan]

Ah... Let me find something to analogize this for the DMG...

"The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

Princess Leia-

Granted... a distinct publisher/creator logo on the cover (in addition with the DMG logo) is at worse a bit of vanity; at best, it helps customers identify one publisher/creator over another. OBS seller sites are very visual. This and search features aren't ideal.

In my mind if the DMG wants to keep product identify consistent it would better to set the location of the DMG logo to specific area on any given product. This would be a better way to go about it. The community of creators over there, has certainly grown leaps and bounds in the last couple of years... On the front page, it's much easier for some to identify a publisher logo. You're already at the DMG site; the DMG logo (while I would agree should be there) is sort of moot.

I thought whatever the price point is, the DMG collects half. Since this is the case, it makes even more sense to me, at such a large percentage, that product creators should be able to display their own logos.

 

[J.L. Duncan]

In short... This is a bad policy. Period.

 

[timbannock]

Why such the fuss by dms guild over such a minor issue?

Exactly my point. The amount of work OBS has to do in policing all the garbage goes down, which to me is a win.

Nonsense. They are taking a 50% royalty from your work. Of course they owe you something. You’re not an indentured servant!

That's a ridiculous extreme. I have the privilege to use their IP, their marketing, and their selling channel to publish the kind of thing I've been doing with my friends for 35 years for free. I'm making 50% off that stuff through no small amount of their hard work; I think I can obey a rule or two about covers and try pretty hard not to put porn in whatever I publish on their site ;-P

 

[Morrus]

That's a ridiculous extreme. I have the privilege to use their IP, their marketing, and their selling channel to publish the kind of thing I've been doing with my friends for 35 years for free. I'm making 50% off that stuff through no small amount of their hard work; I think I can obey a rule or two about covers and try pretty hard not to put porn in whatever I publish on their site ;-P

And they're making 50% off your hard work. It's a partnership. The again, hey, you can value your work however you'd like; I don't consider it of zero value.

But will you come work for me? I could do with some freelancers with that mindset!

 

[timbannock]

And they're making 50% off your hard work. It's a partnership. The again, hey, you can value your work however you'd like; I don't consider it of zero value.

But will you come work for me? I could do with some freelancers with that mindset!

I don't see how I'm devaluing my work: I'm now making money off the hobby I've always done. I see how you are devaluing what they bring to this arrangement, though, which is marketing, selling channel, legal use of world-renowned IP, and access to all other community created content. Not to mention easily finding/contacting other community creators for collaborations and additional social presence. Those things are worth a considerable amount, and if you look at how a book deal is structured for any sort of author -- RPG industry or not -- I think you'd see that 50% is quite generous.

And if I can't/won't follow their rules, I can publish on DriveThru, say it's 5e-compatible, and be free to do even more with my covers. But I also lose access to that IP, all of that specific community content, and the marketing power of an IP that is world-renowned. That's totally doable for people who want to do that.

This is not indentured servitude, and I'm pretty sure this is not even a big deal. It's certainly not something that's egregious in a world where publishing someone's IP online all the time normally is something for a C&D letter, yet if one Googles D&D fan-created content...