Right, which is why I'm saying that artists should retain exclusive control of the actual works that they produce and receive mandated royalties from anything t

Right, which is why I'm saying that artists should retain exclusive control of the actual works that they produce and receive mandated royalties from anything that "covers" it (i.e. is substantively the same). Movie adaptations would fall under the category of covers. Where I think it gets murky is when you try to claim ownership over the characters and universe. Because that prevents anyone who's inspired from sharing and selling their work. They either have to come up with their entirely unique OC or do what a lot of authors do which is pick a universe and cast that's in the public domain which is why we get so many greek god adaptations, Camelot, vampires, zombies. The creativity that would flourish if "Harry Potter" could be used with the freedom that people use Count Dracula would be incredible.