[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]​

 

[timbannock]

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.

I'm not discounting that, mind you. It's an important point.

But I know -- as someone who was on DMsGuild from day 1 -- that the vast majority of my sales came from the promotions that the site ran. I'm talking vast majority here: 98%, maybe more. I'm sure that's not some universal truth for all authors, but I have a suspicion that it's not entirely unique to me, either. I basically didn't have branding of any significant kind at first, and found that adding it a little later has not translated to anything like the business that those sitewide sales have over the course of the following year.

So that's what colors my perception. I'm not ruling out it's importance, but I certainly have numbers to back up how little it's mattered IME.

And just a general thing: people still buy stuff sight unseen, based solely on a brand or name?! What is wrong with people???

 

[CleverNickName]

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

Agreed. Fans selling their creations online to other fans is one thing, and publishing companies selling large amounts of content is another. Obviously the DM's Guild will want to encourage the former and discourage the latter, and I'm just saying that I support that decision.

Perhaps my "video game mods" analogy wasn't the best. Forget I mentioned it.

 

[darjr]

Access to WotC IP is HUGE. What happens to everyone’s calculations if WotC were to open up Planescape, or Greyhawk Friday?

 

[Morrus]

Access to WotC IP is HUGE.

Is it, though? On what comparisons are you basing that? How much extra does the average seller make by adding Elminster to their PDF? I mean, plenty are doing pretty well without going near WotC IP. I’d argue that the most successful third party stuff isn’t on DMs Guild.

I’d say access to *Kickstarter* is huge. More so than putting a FR product on DMs Guild by an order of magnitude. Given a choice between the two, KS is a better choice, I think. You don’t need Elminster in your book to make a living.

If you personally *want* to set your adventure in the Forgotten Realms, and that desire overrides other factors, then sure. It’s a great way to make some money out of your dream and monetise your hobby. And for a tiny group of people you can make some reasonable money out of DMsG. But make no mistake - the OGL and Kickstarter are a better route to making a living writing.

It depends on what you want out of it, I guess. I imagine 90% of folks on DMsG are happy with it as a hobby project which happens to pay a bit, and that’s totally valid.

 

[LordEntrails]

In short, their are benefits to using the DMsG, but there are also draw backs. I think for most cases of people or companies wanting to become a "professional" in the RPG industry it is only (at best) a temporary stepping stone. And one that should be a short step in your career path and only if you need access to specific IP that can only be used through the DMsG.

The areas or types of publishing that is the strength of the DMsG;
1) Fan type content; sure, a few bucks might be nice, but I just want to publish my self more formally than posting on a forum.
2) Content that relies upon the restricted IP that only is accessible through the Guild (such as my upcoming Undermountain adventures).
3) Fantasy Grounds modules and tools. You can only publish through the a separate license agreement, FG Store, or the DMsG. A for small independents, SW would rather you publish through the DMsG (I suspect their store is too labor intensive to accommodate small independents or fan level content).

If you don't fall into one of those three categories, then I would agree that you should consider other outlets.

 

[Morrus]

It's probably important to bear in mind also that WotC *will* close the DMsG sometime. When Mearls, etc. are following their predecessors and working at video game companies or starting their own RPG outfits, new folks will have new ideas. DMsG will go the way of the d20 STL and the GSL; if anybody is interested in advice from somebody who has been through it twice, plan in advance. The OGL is your friend.

 

[darjr]

I don’t have any plans for that struggle, making it rich or even just a high to middle living making rpg products, like adventures or settings or games. Yea my calculus is different.

 

[Morrus]

I don’t have any plans for that struggle, making it rich or even just a high to middle living making rpg products, like adventures or settings or games. Yea my calculus is different.

Well, nobody is going to get rich. But you can make a OK living, if you use Kickstarter and the OGL, and do good work. From what a I hear (and I haven’t used it myself) you probably can't if you only use DMsG.

The benefit of being able to set your adventure in the Forgotten Reams is mainly personal. If you *want* to do that, then DMsG is your baby, and you can totally make some beer money setting your adventure in the Realms. And in that respect, sure, using that IP can be huge.

If you want to start writing for a living, it's a great initial stepping stone. But you need to plan long-term. The OGL and Kickstarter are wonderful tools (the former has been around for nearly 20 years now, and it's still wonderful).

 

[MerricB]

One of the things that utterly frustrates me about this situation is the things that OBS have been saying.

Matt McElroy's stance that "this was intended from day one" is utterly at odds with what the FAQ actually says in the Content Guidelines section:

https://support.dmsguild.com/hc/en-us/articles/217028818-Content-Guidelines

"The DMs Guild logo is available to appear on the cover of your work. It needs to be legible when viewed at full size. It does not need to and should not be the primary logo or title on your cover. "

Sigh...

 

[dynath]

Has anyone asked a lawyer about this policy? I would think it has dubious legality as it is actively obfuscating who produces a product making it more likely to be confused as a product produced by WoTC.