Will you make these steps as easy, fair and painless as possible, or will throw up as many barriers as possible so as to attempt to bankrupt any small creator trying to collect?

"small creators" it's ridiculous to claim that "small creators" are the ones benefiting from the current implementation of "moral rights". Walt Disney started when copyright laws were much more lax. Then Disney Corp lobbied to fortify a moat around itself and since then: where are other Walt Disney's?

>Then Disney Corp lobbied to fortify a moat around itself and since then: where are other Walt Disney's?

they moved to tech and become trillionarires instead of billionaires, I guess. I know we romantacize old Disney, but even some times in the 70's and 80's they were barely pulling it together. Art has always operated on thin margins

(which is exactly why Disney's biggest markets isn't entertainment. But that's a whole other rabbit hole).

----

but to answer your question more directly: depends on your scale. a few (I literally mean "can count the number on your hands") small creators became billionaires over their work, a handful became millionaires but didn't try to expand it into some corporation. others live a modest life in the solid upper middle class.

Very few people are trying to be corporations, especially artists. the skillsets needed to be a business vs. an artist are almost orthogonal.

Not really a creator outside your own head if you can't make a living off it by freemium.

Ironically AI will make all of those things trivial and instantaneous, including automatically dispatching takedown or claims notices.

This is definitely this person's content:

As a hobby content creator, I absolutely disagree. My content is mine, if someone else wants to use it for whatever purposes, that party has to ask for, and get permission, to do so. Which I might or might not give.

But actually I hearby claim it as my own, and if you want to use it my license fee is one million internet bucks per use.

Don't distribute it then

Is this your answer to life? Don't own a car if you don't want your windows broken? Maybe we should discourage people from doing immoral acts instead of chastising victims of theft.

And to split hairs: you don't need to distribute your work to have it stolen. the various leaks and hacks over the years attests to that.

Depends where you choose to park your car. But your analogy is misguided as Information cannot be owned ) / be the subject of material property rights

>Information cannot be owned / be the subject of material property rights

Pragmatically, no. But legally that's the exact point of copyright.

We consider certain information as being capable of being stolen (identity, deeds, various military secrets), so it needs protection and punishment for trying to steal such information. Else there's no disincentive for identity theft nor hacking a private database (and there should be, in my opinion. Once again, information does not have to he distributed to be extracted).

1. Since my content is photos, for which I have RAW files with camera embedded copyright data, that's easy enough

2. You either used it in a catalogue, brochure or for a website; in the physical media case I have the proof, I wouldn't if I wouldn't have found the infriction, by use on the internet, well, it's the internet

3. There are international law firms specialized just for that