Why something like a piece of furniture for this example? Why not the infamous Nike logo? Designed for $35 by student Carolyn Davidson. She was later compensa

Why something like a piece of furniture for this example? Why not the infamous Nike logo? Designed for $35 by student Carolyn Davidson. She was later compensated heavily, and so she should have been. It was the morally right thing to do, regardless of how "simple" or "meh" you think the logo may be, there's no denying how effective and recognizable it is. Would it have been "rentseeking behaviour" for her to ask to be compensated? No. It'd have been reasonable. At $35 and a student, that would have otherwise been exploitation. Artists and artisans are exploited constantly. I don't think laws like these are unreasonable. If the object still commands value, and there's only one of it, why shouldn't the artist be compensated? They can only create x works in their lifetime, at some point they must retire.