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