Thread:Undoniel/@comment-5270921-20190224042313/@comment-1009000-20190225223048

It‘s not a presumption, it‘s common sense. Again - to the company, the question of creation credits has legal implications. As has been shown by Marvel settling several lawsuits to that effect over the past few decades. I find it odd you would contest that their considerations are different from ours - they‘re part of the biggest media company in the world. Of course it‘s also about money. Were they to suddenly co-credit Trimpe, his estate could sue - like Kirby‘s did. That is not assumption, it’s a fact. Creation credits equal money owed. Do I know whether that‘s an actual debate at their offices? No. I never claimed that. But you refer to their official stance - and it is absolutely reasonable to assume that historical accuracy is not their only concern. In that respect, yes, I claim Thomas‘ opinion is more objective.

Look, it‘s not a battlegound. I can live with it either way, even though in my pov, there is enough evidence to support a credit. I just find the inconsistency troublesome - on the one hand, claiming the official Marvel stance is relevant while ignoring the guy who in fact ordered the character to be created while at the same time ignoring official Marvel stance when it comes to licensed characters like Conan.