Copyright is a tool that gives creators the ability to commercialize their work. That its spirit, nothing more.
That’s what we are told is the purpose because otherwise we wouldn’t accept its existence. In practice it doesn’t work that way. The persistent story is that artists get very little compensation whilst whichever large entity is acting as the middleman for their copyright - often owning it outright despite doing nothing to make it - takes the vast majority of the profit.
It is a tool of corporate control, nothing more. Without copyright there would be no way a middleman could insert themselves and ripoff artists, take their money, and compromise their work with financially-driven studio meddling.
And the idea that the “spirit” of copyright is for artists, that completely falls apart when you understand that modern copyright terms exist almost entirely to profit one company’s IP - Disney is just delaying the transfer of Mickey Mouse into the public domain. That’s why copyright is now lifetime +75 years, or something ridiculous like that. That is not for artists to be compensated. Mickey Mouse isn’t going to be unmade when that happens. If Disney can’t operate as a business with all the time and market share they’ve built then they should just go under. There’s no justification for it beyond corporate greed.
Also without copyright there couldn’t be monopolies like Disney buying Fox, Marvel and Star Wars. That is an absurd situation and should be an indication that antitrust is effectively gone.
And as for artists getting paid, we’re transitioning more and more to a patron model, where people are paid just to create, and release most of their work for free with some token level of patron interaction. You don’t need copyright for that.
Gabu@lemmy.world 7 months ago
In one sentence, you’ve already demonstrated that you don’t understand artists at all.
QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world 7 months ago
In one sentence, you’ve already demonstrated that you don’t understand how artists subsist at all. You’ve also confused the word “incentive” with “motivation”.
Gabu@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Guess what I do for a living. You have 1 guess.
QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Look, I understand that money isn’t the primary incentive for (hopefully all) artists. But I don’t think a system where you effectively cannot make a living as a full-time artist is beneficial for society either. Since you’re an artist, can I ask how you subsist without an alternative source of income?
BURN@lemmy.world 7 months ago
No, he understands just fine
Artists might create out of love, but they’re not going to share it for free so someone else can make a profit
Gabu@lemmy.world 7 months ago
We literally do it all the time…
BURN@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Not all artists do
I’m glad your line of work allows you to make a living, but the same model doesn’t work for everyone.
ActionHank@sopuli.xyz 7 months ago
You misunderstand me. Artists want to be able to dedicate themselves to the development and creation of their art. Unfortunately that requires money. For most people (poor people) the only way to both be making art non-stop, and be able to live at a somewhat normal standard, is to get paid while doing it. I know many artists. I art majored. Everyone is trying to find a way to make it viable, by figuring out what they are able to sell. Sure, yeah, its for love art. It can only be so when you have someone paying your way, or you’re already retired. If your making art as a hobby and a hobby alone, you probably care little about conversations of IP. For one because your original work is protected immediately upon creation, and for two, IP is about protecting commercial interest. You made the thing for no reason than to satisfy your own interest. You don’t really care if anyone paid you or not, you would have done it anyways, therefore IP doesn’t really concern your hobby. As soon as you take the thing to gallery, and put a price tag on it, your no different than anyone else trying to see what they can make a buck off of.