Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help.
It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here. You can also go to this Directory thread
for ongoing cleanup projects.
Commenting to bump, as it's been a couple of days.
I haven't taken this to the fact-check thread, as the fact checking has been done - so I'm just after confirmation I can make the change without it being considered the start of an edit war.
If so I'll link this ATT from discussion pages (and in edit reason), so that we don't repeat this the next time someone looks at The Other Wiki's write-up, if that doesn't get amended.
Edited by Mrph1
Maybe the urban legend is that Hasbro originally owned the rights and not Marvel?
Edited by KUnlimited Avatar by Butterscotch Arts. Used under license.
^ I've never seen a claim that Hasbro own (or owned) the rights, and I don't read the example quoted above that way. It seems to be more about speculation as to why Hasbro don't own it.
"Marvel copyrighted it first" would be the simple answer, and is the one Marvel have officially given in the collected editions.
Edited by Mrph1
Yeah, it does read like speculation. I'd be fine with a cut.
Avatar by Butterscotch Arts. Used under license.
I'll give another day or so, then cut if there's no further feedback. Thanks!
No further feedback, so I've made the changes and linked to this ATT.
Two Marvel Comics pages, ComicBook.Deaths Head and Trivia.Deaths Head, have some 'detective work' statements/examples added by DaPolicia regarding the character's creation and copyright status. The same claims were added to The Other Wiki's page for the character.
These are largely updates to examples and text I previously edited or added, so I don't want to revert them myself (and start an edit war) without a consensus.
This is the core claim they've added:
The collected edition introduction directly states that "High Noon Tex" was created to secure copyright. There's a photo of the relevant statements here
◊ for anyone who want to read it.
IANAL, but as I understand it UK copyright law is based on evidence of creation, not just widespread publication. Ashcan Copy logic allows the creation of a quick, sketchy version of the work or character to confirm ownership. The intro says it was "subsequently" published and I don't think a 1988 signature on the final/published work is a "Gotcha!" to show the creators are lying.
With that in mind I'd like to:
Even if there's more to the story than the official sources suggest, and Marvel isn't telling the complete and accurate history, I don't think it's our place to speculate in this way.
(If we get an official on-the-record statement from the company or creators that contradicts the original printed statements, that would be different)
Does that sound fair?
Edited by Mrph1