Talk:Creator ownership in comics

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Comics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

So this section...

Creative-ownership, however, is not always financially advantageous to creators. Writer David has frequently pointed out that his creator-owned works have sold a small fraction of the series he writes as work-for-hire, featuring popular publisher-owned characters.

...is marked with one citation needed for Peter David saying his creator-owned works have sold a small fraction, which is all well and good. but the initial statement doesn't follow from that. Creators tend to get a larger percentage take from books they own, which contrasts publisher-owned books where the writer or artist might get an up-front fee and nothing else. Considering there is no citation for the comment and no proof that there is a monetary disadvantage, I'm just going to remove that little paragraph. Feel free to put it back in if there are some statistics beyond the comments of one writer to back it up. --98.154.170.255 (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put it back in, because the removal of it was based on your disagreement with PAD's arguments, not on the fact that we don't know exactly when/where he said it. The fact that you replaced it with a quote presenting one person's counterpoint-of-view as it if it were objective fact, makes it more important to keep, for balance. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to present the correct conclusions, but to present the arguments. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article speaks almost solely of US-situation, portraying it as standard worldwide, with Britain as the sole exclusion. This gives very wrong impression of the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.240.52.235 (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]