The commercial work of many (most? all?) commercial artists is fundamentally a product, not different from any other item where distribution in a market or cons

The commercial work of many (most? all?) commercial artists is fundamentally a product, not different from any other item where distribution in a market or consumption is concerned. These art products are often sponsored by organizations who collect revenue from sales and in turn provide distribution or promotion, so they have a reasonable argument that they should continue benefiting from the work if the artist dies. This sounds heartless and I am not generally a supporter of "art is product" (I find it exhausting, to be honest) but it's unavoidable for professional artists. On a human scale, this might just be the artist's family who supported the artist during life (think: a partner whose full-time job provided funding and health benefits while the other sweated it out in a studio) who relied on their income during life. Or the foundation might collect royalties to pay the staff who assisted with the work (essentially co-creating it) per contracts established at the time of its creation.