• polonius-rex@kbin.run
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    As opposed to now where the original artist/author at least has some recourse against the big corporation. Versus none.

    Why would the artist get an explosion of exposure when Disney’s edition of the book was significantly more widely publicised, so everybody who might be interested in it already bought it from Disney.

    The literal best case scenario here is that you have equal marketing, in which case Disney gets 50% of the sales and you get 50% of the sales. In what world is cutting your potential revenue in half a win for creators?

    • Hugucinogens@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      A “truly small” creator, would get , I dunno, let’s say 5% of Disney’s marketed sales, after being stolen from, from being known as the guy Disney stole from. Which would be enormously more than if he only had his “truly small” marketing.

      A more successful and known creator, who would market himself more broadly on his own, would not be easy to steal from, since it would be quick enough for the stealing to be found out, to dampen Disney sales.

      And all this, ignores the paradigm shift in monetisation (Uniquenameosaurus YouTube video), that could enhance this process immensely, and allow artist creativity to flourish even more, without even leaving the diseased economical rules of capitalism.

      and irrelevant little aside

      Also about this,

      As opposed to now where the original artist/author at least has some recourse against the big corporation. Versus none.

      Guns give some recourse to poor people, against the rich, because anyone could use a gun.

      Guns allow the rich to equip their personal security teams, with guns.

      Guns are not helping the poor, and neither does copyright.