Hey, student who’s doing their masters in publishing here! a lot of this post doesn’t fundamentally understand copyright. (I’ll mainly use book references, since that’s what I know, but there are fundamental similarities across mediums)
• “the vast majority of authors don’t own the work they make” - this is just not factual. Authors own their work, that is what copyright is, unless they sign it over. which they don’t. (sources: x, x)
authors grant a publishing house, music label, or film studio (or any other similar entity) permission / license to publish their work in an agreed upon manner.
and yes there are standards, like when you grant a company those rights they get to have a say in marketing, design, and how the work may be distributed (hardcover, paperback, cd, etc etc.) to ensure they get some of their money back.
but those terms are terms you negotiate. in any contract the author and owner of the copyright has protections. Including the right to sell secondary rights (movie rights, audio book rights, international rights, etc, etc. and each additional right gets them more $.) and the assurance that if a publisher (or other entity) doesn’t use their work that they get the right to sell that license to someone else. (sources: x, x)
• “… it ‘might’ benefit them” - copyright is a type of intellectual property that protects original works of authorship as soon as an author fixes the work in a tangible form of expression. it allows them to decide how that work is distributed, copied, adapted, and displayed for a limited time (aka. the time before it before it becomes public domain).
aka. if the author of Winnie the Pooh wants his character to remain a character for children to connect to and learn from, and not murderous blood thirsty monster in a horror movie he gets to do that, because he made Winnie the Pooh.
it protects them from other people stealing and misusing their work in a way that they feel goes against what they intended the work to do. (sources: x, x, x)
• “copyright doesn’t ensure pay” - again it does, because it demands an author be compensated for their work if another person wishes to use it. now, we can talk about how companies like meta are illegally using the works of people to train ai and how that means authors aren’t getting compensating (aka meta profits off of the work of others without having to pay them for said work), but that isn’t a consequence of copyright. It’s a consequence of a lack of copyright protection.
• “they don’t own their own creative ideas” - you do, to the degree in which they are unique. so no you don’t own the idea of an elf but if you make an elf named Jim whose 30 and does x and x and x you do own him. Ideas, concepts, and facts are not copyrightable but how one expresses those ideas, concepts, and facts are. you own the things you make. Again that is the entire concept of copyright. It’s ownership over the things you make. (sources: x, x)
• “they have to fork over their rights to a company that prevents them from making more of that ip” - again, not correct! No one forks over their rights! that is basic contract 101. Now, there is more nuance here! In books it’s 100% the author who owns their ip. A publisher can’t force them to make more of the ip or make it without their consent. This is similar with music, with the exception of owning their masters. In television and movies writers sell an idea (usually in the form of a pitch or a script), and in television a writers room is then hired to continue the idea. When selling an idea contracts can vary, but since you are selling the idea, you are compensated to a different degree. In games you are hired to help develop an idea. So, yes in these cases your ownership of the ideas are different. A studio or company has paid you to create something that they will then own.
• with these last two points we can have a nuanced conversation about the predatory nature of companies across the board: often times they will pray on young artists who don’t understand their own rights, and who will sign over their ownership without realizing it. and yes, a studio or company paying an artist to make art that they will not have ownership over is not entirely fair either. But those aren’t issues caused by copyright. Copyright doesn’t lead to those issues. Those issues blur the lines of copyright intentionally so they don’t have to compensate their artists.
• “you continue to fuck over working class artists so it may benefit you” - simply: no. working class artists need copyright to protect their own work. copyright does benefit them because it protects their expression and gains them compensation for it.
now: I’m with you in saying that companies, like Disney, EA, etc use copyright to their advantage by making sure nobody else can use their work. and I don’t love it. I think it is predatory and ridiculous. an artist at fan expo making and selling pokemon keychains is not malicious. And that is an issue pertaining to copyright.
BUT it’s important to note that the absence of copyright all together is not the solution. That’s why the concept of fair use within copyright law exists. So that individuals can use works to a degree without getting sued.
Sabrina Carpenter isn’t going to track down people who make keychains of her, and Leigh Bardugo doesn’t care if people make stickers of her characters. Copyright infringement has be enforced by the author or owner on a case by case basis. Most simply do not care for the most part. Is Leigh Bardugo going to come for the person who uses their own drawing to sell a $3 sticker. No. She doesn’t have the time.
But what about if someone takes her character and depicts them killing children, or makes graphically them nude in a poster. Then she could stop them from portraying her work in a way that she doesn’t agree with. Which should be her right since it is her art and its connected to her.
Again, do companies abuse this? Hell yes. But the concept of copyright is not the fundamental issue here. It’s greed. And stripping away the protections authors do have to be fairly compensated by the companies that publish their work, and to decide how their work is presented helps no-one. Not the people making keychains or kickstarters or anything else.
Just because you don’t mean any harm doesn’t mean you get free rein over the art of other people. Thats what authors are arguing.
If you read all that, thanks! Please continue to engage with the issue of copyright in a nuanced manner! It’s a complex issue!