[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]

...
A note: if the logo is THAT big a deal for some people, do they really think folks are buying their products sight unseen? ...

Yes it is. And many of the established DMsG authors feel that many of their followers buy their products based upon their branding. Personally I would rather click on the author link to get all of an author's products. But I suspect many believe that when a "follower" of theirs sees the logo on the New items list, they follow the link to the page description and don't follow links for products they don't recognize. Which is probably true.

Well I , for one, consider this great news... For EN5inders. A negative for an opponent is a positive for you, right?

That's an unfortunate attitude. When your neighbor gets hurt, do you feel better about yourself? We should all be looking for the entire community to thrive and grow. It does not need to be a zero sum game where the loss of a one group/publisher means that benefits a competitor. Instead, thing of competition as being good; it increases the market for all, increases choice, improves product quality, provides price competition... In short, competition is good for the consumers and the publishers.

 

[CleverNickName]

I agree with [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION]. I also like the notion that fan material should be produced for the satisfaction of creating something that others enjoy and for growing the community...not for capitalization.

I don't like paid mods either, same reason.

 

[Morrus]

I agree with @CapnZapp. I also like the notion that fan material should be produced for the satisfaction of creating something that others enjoy and for growing the community...not for capitalization.

People are perfectly entitled to sell their work, and I'm not talking about legality.

 

[robconley]

Turn the whole cover into your "logo" i.e. Trade Dress. Granted this precludes doing a traditional full page piece of art with titles and logo however if done right can be as distinctive as a logo. For example the minimalist cover of Classic Traveller. Unless WoTC and OBS want to play whack a mole or mandating the same cover for everybody this is a self defeating move.

 

[Mike Myler]

DMsGuild has never been intended to promote people professionally publishing their own work (hint: if you can only sell it at DMsGuild, you cannot sell it at your friendly local game store, or anywhere else that sells things). It was made to encourage people to pool their homebrewed content into the D&D brand (which is why what you "publish" there becomes intellectual property of DMsGuild) and direct the customer base's attention for 5E content published by third parties (which they can't avoid the existence of; you can copyright game text and terminology but not mechanics, and the d20 3.0 & 3.5 System Reference Documents make it theoretically possible to transfer material between editions under the Open Gaming License) because when 4E bottomed out Paizo made Pathfinder and took away the market for a decade. And now look--there's like 3 Pathfinder video games, and comics, and novels, and a card game, and partnering with other good brands like Red Sonja and Vampire Hunter D.

They really, really, really do not want another Golarion, so they made a marketplace as anti-publisher as they could and told everyone to go there because it's the "Official D&D Marketplace". What I find most frustrating about this is that it's a totally different environment (5E is booming, they did not just mass-fire a bunch of super-competent project teams) so it's unnecessary, and I genuinely worry that people who have contributed to it did so without fully realizing their rights (which their fault or not, isn't cool or encouraging for people that want be creative and produce something for others to enjoy). Extra-infuriating? Paizo kept the lights on. Pathfinder brought me (and I'm sure many other people) back into the fold, and the industry would be far weaker without their pro-stance on third party publishers, which itself has spurred on rising tides for games well beyond Pathfinder (N.O.W. not necessarily O.L.D. or N.E.W. because I bet Russ would've made those regardless, lots of content for S&W or Savage Worlds, etc.)

Frankly I think it's good that people are realizing that they are not supposed to be there if they want to own their material, and I really hope DmsGuild offers folks some way out of this where they don't have to entirely abandon a ton of work for products that aren't interwoven with Faerun or Ravenloft and so on.

 

[Von Ether]

I agree with [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION]. I also like the notion that fan material should be produced for the satisfaction of creating something that others enjoy and for growing the community...not for capitalization.

I don't like paid mods either, same reason.

That is a cool attitude, but not only do most of pros come out of the fan community, they did it by selling their work in either a magazine or their own product first.

The person who came straight out of college with an English degree with a love of gaming and zero networking connections seems to be the outlier.

It's much easier to get a gig once you have a track record of some sort. In the past, that used to be Dragon, White Dwarf and White Wolf magazine. Now adays it seems that like EN World and DM's Guild have replaced those magazines.

 

[Arilyn]

I feel that this is a petty decision, similar to releasing a gutted SRD. They don't want another logo competing with their own on the cover of a 5e product. Certainly that is their right, but to me it's just another annoying little company decision that makes them feel isolated from the rest of the gaming community, which is usually very generous. Freelancers, for example, have nothing but praise for Paizo.

Whatever reason they have for this move is probably not worth another, albeit small, hit to their reputation.

 

[epithet]

Seems like it's likely to cause a lot of cover art to start using logos on shields, banners, etc. "It's not my logo, it's that knight's heraldic device!"

Wizards of the Coast seems to be looking for ways to irritate the people who keep it profitable. Their products are good, but their corporate attitude often seems to go out of its way to antagonize.

 

[Corpsetaker]

Copyright infringement is just a smoke screen for what's really going on. Just like the politicians in the USA use the argument about protecting children from predators so they try and get the internet censored. The real reason they want is censored is to keep the real news from getting out there.

All they are doing is what most company's do to make more profit and keep the little guy in his/her place. You do the work, you get paid peanuts, and they get to own your stuff and keep you in line without doing any work what so ever. I knew this was coming, they just wanted to wait and get really good authors established before they threw this out there. Imagine DMsGuild had they done this in the beginning?

 

[Corpsetaker]

I'm actually shocked at the amount of people who think their hard, and creative work should be handed over for peanuts just because they give you the "privilege" of putting stuff on their site.

Shocking!