Their incentive is.... making art is fun and a passion. Holding copyrignt allows artists to earn a living while freely pursuing their passion. Artists already struggle to get paid well for their work... and you want to strip away their rights to their work? Do you also pay your artists in impressions?

[–] TheBluePillock@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

This is a mistaken take driven by corporations. Artists and creators generally don't own their own copyrights. It's the first thing they're forced to sign away to get any kind of contract, publishing deal, or other form of access from the big players who hold the keys to the kingdom. Nobody is making even a million dollars let alone more without going through them, and they don't agree unless they own those rights.

Small time creators can own their own work, but even then you have countless examples of creators who wouldn't play ball so the bigger companies just plagiarized them and they don't have the money to fight it. You need the backing of a big company to even enforce your claim against the other big companies that threaten it if it's actually lucrative. And, again, they won't unless they're the ones that own it because you signed it away.

Copyright does not protect creators in the slightest. It's a tool by and for large business used to legally steal from creators.

[–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 weeks ago

Exactly why i said copyright should be limited by non-person entities.

[–] IzzyJ@lemmy.world 1 points 4 weeks ago

An artist isnt stripped of anything, they can still work on an old IP. Fans will likely follow if they're actually good. They just would lose the ability to stop anyone else from profiting off it. I happen to be a content creator and aspiring writer myself, and have every intention on placing my works in the creative commons