• psychothumbs@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    “your proposal would harm young artists who need to share their works in order to gain publicity for something they intend to sell and sustain themselves on.”

    The default is already for young artists to share a lot of their work hoping to get noticed. Getting rid of copyright would be reorienting the whole system to center that experience more rather than the established artists and art producing corporations who now are in a strong enough position to charge. “Making it” would just mean that your patreon was doing gangbusters rather than selling a lot of copies of whatever your art is.

    • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      No, it would empower anybody, especially corporations, to take the new artists’ ideas and work and repackage them as an item for sale to others. Anything you share would not be covered by copyright and therefor no longer be your property.

      Individuals cannot compete with organizations.

      • psychothumbs@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        If you are already sharing something for free in order to gain publicity, what is the downside of others repackaging them and spreading them further? That is exactly the kind of publicity you’re trying to gain.

        • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 month ago

          But you’re not profiting off of it. The corporation is. They have no incentive to give you credit, every incentive to claim that they made it which they would of course be allowed to do. They could even start making their own derivative pieces or continuations. The artist has gained nothing from this hypothetical.

          • psychothumbs@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            Eliminating copyright doesn’t mean they’d be allowed to lie about who wrote what they were publishing. Anything an artist creates blowing up and gaining wide appreciation is very good for that artist’s future prospects. An artist who is spreading their work for free anyway is much better off in the scenario where there’s no copyright and everyone understands the need to tip / patronize their favorite artists.

            • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              Eliminating copyright doesn’t mean they’d be allowed to lie about who wrote what they were publishing.

              That is literally what Copyright is. Removing it means exactly that.

              • psychothumbs@lemmy.worldOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                No copyright is about the “right” to “copy” the work in question, not the attribution. Works that are in the public domain still list the author.