Is buying the copyright removal worth it?

[coolguy67]

So there's a way to remove the XF copyright without buying it - has something to do with extra.less

Spoiler

/* Copyright */
.p-footer-copyright{font-size: 0px;}
.custom-copyright{font-size: 11px;}
/* End */

So is it worth buying copyright removal when you can do this?

 

[Hall of Famer]

The forum software and the addons are different things though, and I am speaking for the software.

 

[Mendalla]

Yeah, and what if you installed some add-ons and they all want to put their own copyright in the footer?
Can get quite messy! That's why I usually pay for removing the copyright. I like a clean layout and don't want a huge footer with links that are totally not relevant for our users.

I can see this being an issue more than anything. Right now, I have three copyright statements in my footer (XF, style, one add-on). I could see it getting rather cluttered if I had more add-ons.

 

[Mendalla]

So the only advice I can give is, use another software if you want to remove the copyrights, why use something you find its copyrights text uncomfortable?

Hiding the copyright doesn't mean they are trying to hide what software they are using or are uncomfortable with the copyright. You are still free to add a statement like "Powered by Xenforo" or something somewhere on your site. Paying for removal just gives you the flexibility to do it in a way that fits your styling rather than having to follow their specified wording, location, and format. I haven't paid for brand removal myself, but I get why some sites want it, especially a commercial site that wants to build around their own brand.

 

[Seeker-Smith]

You are still free to add a statement like "Powered by Xenforo" or something somewhere on your site.

No you're not

 

[Mendalla]

No you're not

Really? The branding removal is absolute? Thought I had seen discussion about being able to edit it but still leave it. Bad memory, perhaps. As I said, I don't use it, don't plan to. Extra cost I don't need.

 

[Seeker-Smith]

Really? The branding removal is absolute? Thought I had seen discussion about being able to edit it but still leave it. Bad memory, perhaps. As I said, I don't use it, don't plan to. Extra cost I don't need.

If you read all the posts in this thread. You can't change it.

 

[Mr Lucky]

If you read all the posts in this thread. You can't change it.

Once you pay for branding removal, I don't see any problem in referring to xenforo however you want.

Proudly powered by xenForo or even Reluctantly powered by xenForo.

 

[Chris D]

If you pay to remove it, you can do whatever you want (within reason )

 

[Mr Lucky]

If you pay to remove it, you can do whatever you want (within reason )

So , just for a laugh, you could put Community platform by vBulletin?

OK, I'll get me coat...

 

[ShikiSuen]

So , just for a laugh, you could put Community platform by vBulletin?

OK, I'll get me coat...

That's without reason, comrade. By using that will Internet Brands find you trouble.

 

[Gri]

If you want to reduce the number of outgoing links in the footer section, it is wise to pay $250 and remove the branding. Otherwise, it can stay there forever.

 

[ShikiSuen]

If you want to reduce the number of outgoing links in the footer section, it is wise to pay $250 and remove the branding. Otherwise, it can stay there forever.

Actually not only 250USD. It depends on how much you are supposed to pay to those addon developers (except free branding removals allowed by certain addon developers like ThemeHouse).

 

[RaptureForums]

I'm guessing they keep the link in the forums software for SEO purposes and to discourage people from removing the link they charge $300 to remove it? Plus it is probably for advertising as people will see at the bottom of forums pages they visit who made the forums software and if they like it they will probably be inclined to check out Xenforo if they have a need for forums software.

I'm sure they get lots of traffic and love from Google, etc. for having people link to their site as it probably causes them to rank high on Google search engine pages. So, I can see why they would have the link there on default. It makes business sense to me. But I can see why people do not want a bunch of "advertising" links all over their site. I'm sure most people didn't go into business or start their website to advertise someone else's site even if it is the platform maker's website. It can look unprofessional for some depending on their website purpose. And not everyone can afford the $300 branding removal fee.

However, I have always wondered why the branding removal was so high? For example, I use Pixel Exit's theme and paid I think $20-$30 for it initially. Branding removal there I think is another $20 for the year. That seems reasonable to me. To charge $300 for branding removal when the software is $160 a year and $55 for renewal seems kind of high to me even if it is a one time thing.

All I can guess is that they can say they give you a choice to remove it, but it is a costly price to pay. Or maybe they have come up with a formula that shows that $300 is how much money they would lose or have to spend on advertising to make up the loss of that link?

I would have thought a nominal fee of like $50 or $100 one-time would have been reasonable to charge for branding removal. But I'm sure someone on here will say it depends on what you think is "reasonable" for that.

If they are inclined to do so and haven't already, maybe Xenforo could look at a "win-win" situation for them and those who want to remove the branding by looking at an option of say $20 or $30 a year for the branding removal to be added to their renewal fees? Each year you could pay the small branding removal fee for the year and if you decide later you can stop paying for it then the branding goes back on there. I don't know. I would be more inclined to pay the extra $20-$30 a year as opposed to the big payout of $300 one time. I don't know if others would prefer that or not?

Who knows, maybe Xenforo would find they make more money from people paying for the yearly removal fee as opposed to the one time fee? I'm not sure what the percentage of people who buy Xenforo who also pay for the branding removal fee, but I would imagine it is a small percentage? But I would suppose that Xenforo finds it more beneficial to leave the link on there than to have it taken off.

Does anyone know why the fee is so high compared to other fees? I personally have found the $300 too high to take off a silly link at the bottom, but at times I like others have wished it was not on there.

But at the end of the day, they can do whatever they want. We are just peasants in the Xenforo kingdom.

 

[Anthony Parsons]

That's why I usually pay for removing the copyright. I like a clean layout and don't want a huge footer with links that are totally not relevant for our users.

Exactly. My choice to have it removed is so I don't have useless links around that have nothing to do with my sites purpose. I think it was cheaper when I did mine at XF launch.

Pretty simple though. Pay to remove it or don't and leave it the hell alone or risk having your license cancelled and losing all that money.

 

[alisik]

Its great piece of software so if team wants to have copyright notice that does not interfere with my site, and keeps them growing ( by linking to home-page ), than let them have it.

 

[Kilt]

Speaking just generally under U.S. law, although a copyright notice has not been required on published works since March 1, 1989, eliminating a copyright notice nevertheless may weaken the copyright owner's position in certain types of infringement litigation. (See U.S. Copyright Office Circular 3, Rev. 03/2021.)

So why would a copyright owner take such a risk by removing the notice?

Well, for revenue, of course, which they presumably feel outweighs the incremental litigation risk.

The removal of a copyright notice isn't worth a farthing to me. So, I'm not offended by it on my soon-to-be Xenforo "community platform" . . . nor on the second page of every one of the thousands of books I own.

 

[AndrewSimm]

Speaking just generally under U.S. law, although a copyright notice has not been required on published works since March 1, 1989, eliminating a copyright notice nevertheless may weaken the copyright owner's position in certain types of infringement litigation. (See U.S. Copyright Office Circular 3, Rev. 03/2021.)

So why would a copyright owner take such a risk by removing the notice?

Well, for revenue, of course, which they presumably feel outweighs the incremental litigation risk.

The removal of a copyright notice isn't worth a farthing to me. So, I'm not offended by it on my soon-to-be Xenforo "community platform" . . . nor on the second page of every one of the thousands of books I own.

I don't think having a copyright at the bottom of every page makes any impact on infringement litigation. Books don't contain copyrights on every page and neither does any non web-based software package I have ever used. I think XF does it because it has value (sales) and they charge to remove to cover lost sales.

 

[Mr Lucky]

I don't think having a copyright at the bottom of every page makes any impact on infringement litigation.

I believe it could given that copyright litigation is full of grey areas. Whatever decison or costs are arrived at can be open to may factors. Was it coincidenatlly an infringement (can be in misc/art but less likely in this case). Was the owner's income damaged? etc. So if someone claimed they didn't know it was an infrungement your honour, it will unlikely affect a verdict, but I belive that may affect the amount of damages.

On a low level, if someone posts a cartoon on my forum, and there is a clear copyright notice, and they do it repatedly after a warning then they'd get banned. If there was no clear copyright notice I would cut them some slack - even if I find it was copyright.

 

[AndrewSimm]

I believe it could given that copyright litigation is full of grey areas. Whatever decison or costs are arrived at can be open to may factors. Was it coincidenatlly an infringement (can be in misc/art but less likely in this case). Was the owner's income damaged? etc. So if someone claimed they didn't know it was an infrungement your honour, it will unlikely affect a verdict, but I belive that may affect the amount of damages.

On a low level, if someone posts a cartoon on my forum, and there is a clear copyright notice, and they do it repatedly after a warning then they'd get banned. If there was no clear copyright notice I would cut them some slack - even if I find it was copyright.

I agree that website owners, including Xenforo, should post copyright notices at the bottom of their page. I agree that this offers better protection incase of litigation. I don't agree that a copyright is required to be posted any every page of a piece of software and that by doing so it offers more protection. Copyrights during installation and within the files would more than cover that XF is copyrighted. Certainly this is an opinion but if you consider every piece of installable software you use as evidence then I think the evidence supports my argument.

 

[Kilt]

We're getting away from the original topic, but copyright law for software is still ambiguous in the U.S. It depends on what the copyright notices are trying to protect. In the 1980's smart software developers would put copyright notices in each module of the source code and object code to protect the literal code itself. (They would also put in proprietary and trade secret notices.)

However, I suspect the kind of copyright notices we're talking about are not to protect the code, per se, but rather the so-called "sequence, structure and organization" or "look and feel" of the GUI, which is where much of the legal ambiguity still obtains. Variations of this issue have been litigated for 35+ years in the U.S., most prominently in Apple's famous suit against Microsoft's Windows.

Suppose Eve had access only to a version of Program X that has no copyright notice in the GUI. She decides to copy that GUI exactly for a competitive product, but using completely different code. The developers of Program X sue Eve for infringement. She raises what's called the innocent infringer defense -- i.e., "I had no idea it was copyright protected." This defense may be fairly weak in any event (and only affects the amount of statutory damages), but it would be completely nullified if Eve's copy of the Program X had had a copyright notice in the GUI in the first place.

Thinking this through further, it occurs to me that if Eve has to go through documented and provable legal transactions to "buy out" of a copyright notice in the GUI, her ability to claim ignorance of the copyright status would probably be de minimus.