[...] His post goes on to pre-emptively address potential quibbling, the most significant of which is this: “There are also instances where it could be said that referencing an original creator isn’t all that appropriate when it’s a subsequent creator or creators whose efforts are the reason the creation is being discussed.” That way lies madness, as we try to figure out who really created, for example, the Wolverine we now know. [...]

[...] The superhero comics, which make up most of what’s available online as copyright violations, are sold based on brands (X-Men, Batman, Green Lantern) or universe continuity (Brightest Day, Curse of the Mutants). Those brands, in many cases, have long been severed from their original creators, and in many cases, those creators were not adequately compensated for their creations. Those brands are often interchangeable, and they’re not bought based on the creative names associated. The argument “you need to respect the creator and buy their work so they can afford health insurance” simply doesn’t apply in those cases. If I really like reading the new Batwoman because of Greg Rucka’s work, it’s going to be better for him if I buy one of his Whiteout or Queen & Country novels or comics, properties where he actually gets rewards, since he and DC had a falling out. (There’s also an argument that he didn’t create Kate Kane, since she’s really just a reinvention of someone else’s character. This is like trying to figure out Wolverine’s father.) [...]

[...] nothing beyond that.” That’s far from standard practice in the comic field, and given Archie’s history in this field, I can’t imagine that their contracts don’t resolve character creation [...]