Yeah, I'm aware that Guardians of the Galaxy put Rocket on the map, but Rocket has been around before Guardians of the Galaxy has (he even debuted 8-ish years before the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, apparently), so implying that everything containing Rocket has something to do with Guardians of the Galaxy is ridiculous. I don't see anything related to Guardians of the Galaxy in this except a character that appears in it, but is not exclusive to it. You wouldn't tag Shaq Fu on a picture of Mario just because he made a cameo in Shaq Fu, you wouldn't tag Drake and Josh on a vine containing Miranda Cosgrove and Jennette McCurdy randomly deciding to follow someone on a hiking trail just to be creepy just because Miranda played Megan in Drake and Josh, and you wouldn't tag Rick and Morty on a picture of Justin Roiland just because he works on it.

Not trying to be rant-y, just trying to get the point across that characters don't necessarily belong to one thing, especially where Marvel and DC are concerned, considering just how many timelines exist. There's three different Jokers, and I'm not even counting how many Batmans there are.

Was Rocket a dedicated part of any series before Guardians of the Galaxy? I'm no comics expert, but don't lots of comic characters start in another character's series before starring in their own series?

Using video games as examples, Mario started in Donkey Kong (the arcade game) and Sonic first appeared in Rad Racer, but no one is claiming that Mario is a Donkey Kong character or Sonic a Rad Racer character.

the forum thread where the implication was made: forum #142052

The comment that made this all happen: forum #144732

I, personally, don't have any + or - to give out. I only know Rocket from GotG.

BlueDingo said:
but no one is claiming that Mario is a Donkey Kong character or Sonic a Rad Racer character.

Suddenly, two new threads appear.

He appeared in some comics before appearing in Guardians of the Galaxy comics, according to Wikipedia.

do we have a marvel_comics copyright tag? could implicate him to that if we do. since i'm fairly certain both the GoTG movie and comics rocket first appeared in are all Marvel properties.

Rocket is from Rocket Raccoon comics, and Guardians of the Galaxy Comics. He actually appeared in the Hulk first (Incredible Hulk #271) and while he did have his own comic for a time it's generally accepted that Rocket is a member of the GoTG crew, and has primarily featured in those comics.

There's no reason to de-implicate GoTG from rocket. He's a core part of GoTG, just as GoTG is a core part of him.

Demesejha said:
Rocket is from Rocket Raccoon comics, and Guardians of the Galaxy Comics. He actually appeared in the Hulk first (Incredible Hulk #271) and while he did have his own comic for a time it's generally accepted that Rocket is a member of the GoTG crew, and has primarily featured in those comics.

There's no reason to de-implicate GoTG from rocket. He's a core part of GoTG, just as GoTG is a core part of him.

Can we not just agree on team "copyright" tags only applying if there's a clear referencing to said team, not just because they're a member of said team at any point in their timeline? If three characters Abby, Beth, and Clarisa made a team together called The Bonerfarts, and Clarisa was a member of another team with Denise and Ellis called Morons United, you wouldn't tag a picture containing just Clarisa with either The Bonerfarts or Morons United unless there was a clear reference to either team.

treos said:
do we have a marvel_comics copyright tag? could implicate him to that if we do. since i'm fairly certain both the GoTG movie and comics rocket first appeared in are all Marvel properties.

I think Rocket and Marvel are already implied.

ShylokVakarian said:
Can we not just agree on team "copyright" tags only applying if there's a clear referencing to said team, not just because they're a member of said team at any point in their timeline? If three characters Abby, Beth, and Clarisa made a team together called The Bonerfarts, and Clarisa was a member of another team with Denise and Ellis called Morons United, you wouldn't tag a picture containing just Clarisa with either The Bonerfarts or Morons United unless there was a clear reference to either team.

I think Rocket and Marvel are already implied.

Rocket Raccoon is known as a member of the Guardians of the Galaxy. Your argument is like saying, oh, J'onn J'onzz has shown up in comics that weren't Justice League centered, so he shouldn't be considered a part of it, despite 99% of the time being referenced as it.
We're not talking about a completely different entity here, just an alternate canon that very rarely happens. It's fine to have an implication that may be wrong only because of an alternate timeline.

I mean you could ignore everything I just said, but the fact doesn't change rocket is Primarily known from the Guardians of the Galaxy Comics, its what he's been known for the last 10 years, and more close to 20 (almost 30 years, rocket appeared in 1982 thats a hell of a long time.) technically since his comics are intrinsically tied to GoTG.

Demesejha said:
I mean you could ignore everything I just said, but the fact doesn't change rocket is Primarily known from the Guardians of the Galaxy Comics, its what he's been known for the last 10 years, and more close to 20 (almost 30 years, rocket appeared in 1982 thats a hell of a long time.) technically since his comics are intrinsically tied to GoTG.

Funny thing about that explanation is if applied to Pit whose mainly known nowadays as a Smash Bros. character, the result would be different. Then there's Chip and Dale, originally (and currently) Mickey Mouse characters but are better known from Chip 'n Dale: Rescue Rangers.

Question: If a character known for being part of a particular series now becomes significantly better known for a different series 10 years from now, should the copyright implication change at that time to reflect this or does the old copyright stand regardless?

BlueDingo said:
Funny thing about that explanation is if applied to Pit whose mainly known nowadays as a Smash Bros. character, the result would be different. Then there's Chip and Dale, originally (and currently) Mickey Mouse characters but are better known from Chip 'n Dale: Rescue Rangers.

Question: If a character known for being part of a particular series now becomes significantly better known for a different series 10 years from now, should the copyright implication change at that time to reflect this or does the old copyright stand regardless?

Pit is actually very well known as being from Kid Icarus thanks to Uprising. And, besides, Super Smash Bros is a last-resort implication. It's essentially a crosover between everything else and only a few characters are actually from it.
Only reason Master Hand is known for being from Smash Bros and not Kirby and the Amazing Mirror is that his existence in that game is a direct reference to Smash Bros--Even the ability he gives is "Smash."

The answer to that should probably be yes. I mean unless the work is itself a crossover and the image does not directly attribute itself to that crossover it should not apply.

For example, the aforementioned Pit would be tagged as Kid Icarus but if he were also in a picture involving fox and falco it would probably warrant the Star Fox AND Super Smash Bros Tags.

Barring crossover works, when a character is part of a franchise or copyright for more than five years its probably acceptable to tag them as such, with the most recent being most relevant.

Rocket definitely fits into that definition.

Siral_Exan said:
the forum thread where the implication was made: forum #142052

The comment that made this all happen: forum #144732

I, personally, don't have any + or - to give out. I only know Rocket from GotG.

I miss furrypickle ):