3 ms·
So every broke artist that cannot afford the fees would not benefit from their work once it becomes recognized way later in their life? that sound pretty bad.
by ta988 3y ago
So every broke artist that cannot afford the fees would not benefit from their work once it becomes recognized way later in their life? that sound pretty bad.
- cogman10 3y agoHow often does this really happen? Becoming an artist that makes it big is like winning the lottery. It almost never happens in the modern era because we are flooded with extremely talented artists that have no differentiation between them. But further, those "make it late" artists are almost certainly making the majority of their money on their later works. And if we get into the nitty gritty of art, it's super common that the rights to those early works are long sold for $.10. It's unlikely the original artist could see any sort of monetary benefit. On the flip side, media protection is a huge racket that is primarily a detriment to society. It stops media companies from innovating (just keep making mice videos), encourages nasty behavior (Like Disney's vault, where they purposefully lock away media so they can re-release it every n years, for a limited time only), and ultimately limits creativity. Consider how often we hear the story of a youtube video getting taken down because someone hummed something that sounded too close to copyrighted material. That is an active harm to art that is very common.
- owisd 3y agoThe vast majority of artists make all the money they’re ever going to make off their copyright in the first few years, so seems like a fair trade to end perpetual corporate copyright if an extremely tiny number of bleeding heart edge cases lose out.