[ivell]

People make art to also get recognized for that art. Otherwise they would keep that art secret at home.

Without copyright, anyone can copy the art and call it their own. What is then the incentive for the creator to share the art, if there is neither monetory gain and nor fame. And worse than them being recognized, they might even get accused of copying their own art if someone else became famous due to a copy.

Society would miss out a lot.

[Zambyte]

There are lots of famous artists that are older than copyright.

> And worse than them being recognized, they might even get accused of copying their own art if someone else became famous due to a copy.

You mean like right now? Here is A24 claiming copyright for Backrooms related media that came out before their Backrooms related film: https://kotaku.com/backrooms-a24-copyright-strikes-kane-pars...

Being "accused" of copying literally does not matter if copyright didn't exist. This framing is only an issue under copyright.

> Society would miss out a lot.

Society actively misses out a lot. We could have had tons of derivative art that has been buried for the sake of propping up companies. We could have had Aaron Swartz. Abolish copyright.

[ethbr1]

> There are lots of famous artists that are older than copyright.

There are lots of famous artists that made art before color image capture and reproduction (1930s-60s) and digital image capture and reproduction (90s-00s).

Copyrightless artist fame and economic viability is enabled by a lack of widely-accessible, cheap reproductive methods.

> You mean like right now? Here is A24 claiming copyright for Backrooms related media...

Since resolved: https://kotaku.com/backrooms-director-kane-parsons-a24-copyr...

Turns out when you outsource copyright policing to minimum wage folks, ambiguity goes out the window.

> Society actively misses out a lot. We could have had tons of derivative art that has been buried for the sake of propping up companies. We could have had Aaron Swartz. Abolish copyright.

The problem with absolutist arguments is that they ignore inconvenient facts.

At a time when creative and art economics is under siege, how would copyrightless art make enough money for the creators?

The fact of the acquisition of large swaths of copyright rights by large corporations does not negate the fact that artists need food (and ideally, a place to live and a way to provide for their family).

There are positions that might enable that (Hey, what if we banned the assignment of copyright to corporations? Human only? Original creator only?), but none of them are stripping all rights from intellectual property.

[DonsDiscountGas]

Many of the most valuable paintings in the world are out of copyright. It has not diminished their value, because people still value originality even if it's not enforced by the law.

> And worse than them being recognized, they might even get accused of copying their own art if someone else became famous due to a copy.

This happens now all the time, and the winner is determined by who can afford the best lawyers.