I'm not an artist and might be entirely wrong, but my understanding is that for 99% of artists, over 99% of their revenue is from concerts tickets, merch and other physical products, rather than digital/broadcast plays, so changing this to zero wouldn't really affect them, but would act to reduce the power of the labels and other intermediaries over them.
I have the same understanding regarding YouTubers and writers.
There’s so much competition nowadays, almost no indie can achieve nearly enough sales for a living wage. And ironically, the best way to get more attention is to make your product free, hence more and more artists doing free + paid merch.
Going full time on YouTube as a primary and only job is unlikely to work out.
The YouTube income for most small creators get folded back into the channel. Getting a $100 check from YouTube isn’t going to pay your rent, but it makes purchasing some better lighting or a new microphone for the channel an easy choice, which in turn helps them grow and enjoy their hobby channel more.
The argument that the dollar amount is low and therefore it’s okay if we push it all the way to $0 is unconvincing for anyone familiar with how small time creators grow.
It wouldn’t be $0, because creators make money without selling their work: Patreon, commissions, even ads/sponsorships (though not ideal). Most creators I know, all their main work is already free.
The artist still owns their right to distribute their videos. If someone copies their videos and uploads them to a place with no ads or no patreon subscription that eats into the profit the creator of the art could be making, because someone else is essentially giving it away for free. Only the artist has the right to copy their art.
Ad revenue is also subverted by seeing the original video with uBlock, which I think is fair, because I think ads are harmful and unsustainable - like copyright, only a small minority of indie creators get sustainable revenue from ads, and I'd be surprised if the number wasn't decreasing.
Not linking the author's name and patreon is a problem, but I don't think it needs laws and definitely not copyright; if somebody gets the video on the other place to link the original author's patreon, even if they're not who uploaded it, it benefits them and I don't see any serious issue.
It seems like you really only know about how the affects people who make music and TV.
What about illustrators who license their work? Knitters and crocheters who create patterns? There are countless people who sell creative output on a license-basis which would no longer exist in a world without copyright.
Already people who make visual art are demotivated by AI, follow literally any visual artist on Instagram and you’ll see this. Taking away copyright would make that look tiny in comparison.
People who are well-versed in fields like fashion will create original designs which include yarn requirements, needle size, measurements, stitch instructions, construction steps, etc etc and sell them in online marketplaces like Etsy or Revelry.
Oh, I'm familiar with that; I thought that the parent meant that there are people who make money directly from the copyright on the patterns rather than the artifacts they sell. Are there?
Yes, that’s correct. There are people who make money directly from the copyright on the patterns. The parent commenter means that the people referenced are selling the patterns, not the garments.
Is this some kind of trick question or am I just misunderstanding your reply?
As far as I know they sell the patterns, not the finished knitted artifact. Aspiring knitters buy them to enjoy knitting. The physical representation of the pattern isn't worth anything (just a piece of paper), what you're buying is a license to use their intellectual property, so I'd say they're making money from copyright.
They’ll come across some talented little band playing some nice new tune in a tiny club, record it on their phone and give it to one of the existing boy-bands to play.
No need to sign up aspiring artists any more - just take their songs.
Of course it’s the boy band that will sell the merch and the concert tickets.
What? That'd mean 99% of artists are touring musicians giving live performances.
Moviemakers, authors, graphic designers, stone masons, song writers, ...
Not every artists is a musician.
Not every musician performs in venues to such an extent that it makes up most or all of their revenue.
Not every musicians output lends themselves to live performances, so they don't do them.
I'd be surprised if even 10% of artists in the EU or US are making their revenue as live musicians. Whatever the number, it ain't 99%.
Brief anecdote, currently working on a personal project and have commissioned an artist to design a few icons. Was a great experience, fun to work with them, more than happy with the result. Exclusive exploitation/usage rights were only transferred after full compensation was received.
If copyright were not a thing in both their and mine countries, screwing over commissioned artists would be even easier than it already and unfortunately tends to be (having done freelance work myself) as this idea that the artist retains their rights before that point wouldn't be the default and any protections/claims solely based on individual contracts.
Copyright can be flawed, yes, but taking away the core that is artists having their creations protected by default, without needing to manually apply or otherwise seek protection, I feel that shouldn't happen. Copyright, even today, does have merit in my book, though the lobbying efforts by Disney and co. along with post War western Europe loving to just copy US legislation wholesale without reflection have extended copyright further then I feel it should have been.
Without copyright, artist B could perform artist A's original work without penalty. If artist B is better at astroturfing social media than A (maybe because they pay a firm to do it) , then B makes money and A does not.
