I agree :(
Like I get it, You shouldn't be allowed to just completely steal something, But i feel that if you tell people the source, That it should be allowed.
Like I would be unhappy if someone took one of my drawings and put it in their book. But if they took my drawing, did a ton of editing on it, Then put it in their book. Then said something like "The original was done by Kaylin Art". I would be okay with it.
I see awesome artwork all the time which is a violation of intellectual property. Like when people change the clothes of the Disney processes. They look really cool! Or Those T shirts that people make of popular characters that youcan't get anywhere else because the company never made them.
Can't there be some kind of royalty split?
I totally get where you are coming from with that! I mean If I were to make a shirt with an apple on it, I'd probably be too scared to use the keyword "apple" which is sad.
There are an infinite number of ways to monetize and incentivize creativity and get everyone's work recognized and compensated, but all of that comes through cooperation. The vast majority of people would be happy to work out an agreement that leaves everyone satisfied.
But IP is an adversarial framework, not a cooperative one. It says "Now that you have taken my idea into your mind, everything you ever do that can be traced back to that idea partially belongs to me (note that this is a kind of partial enslavement), and I have the right to proceeds from whatever comes from it. If you do not actively work to give me those proceeds, I have the right to take them from you by force. If you resist my taking them by force, I have the right to send thugs to violently dominate you and throw you in a cage. If my thugs are unable to violently dominate you, they have the right to kill you." Adversarial frameworks like this minimize the probability of mutually beneficial outcomes. Most people, when faced with such a framework, prefer to just censor themselves, and everyone loses.
A cooperative framework would set up something like a payment splitter built into Amazon where content creators can list out the people whose works they borrowed from and send them a portion of whatever they make. Amazon could also have a policy saying "If you use someone's work without listing them as a source, you'll be banned from our platform" and people will gladly list their sources because it's more profitable to list on Amazon (where all the buyers are) and split profits; than to create your own store, market it so people can find it, deal with the PR nightmare of being an ass who won't share revenues with creators, but keep all of the meager profits. Everyone's needs get met, and there's no need to do immoral things like hurt people who don't cooperate.
And if someone does go rogue and just refuses to cooperate, let him be. He's not actually hurting you, so why should you be able to hurt him? That guy will probably never exist, and even if he does, you'll waste a lot more money and, more importantly, time, trying to force him to do what you want rather than simply ignoring him. If he's super successful, spend a little money on an ad campaign telling the truth about him, and his loss of profits due to customers just not liking him (the profit loss from negative perception is enormous; people avoid buying from people they don't like) will be incentive enough for him to start cooperating. Or, list his designs on your Amazon store (turnabout's fair play, yeah?) where he doesn't have an account and thus can't report you. Even if he did, Amazon would side with you, whether because you're in the moral right, or simply because it's more profitable for them to take your side because you're paying them to run your store and he's not.
In virtually all areas of life, you will get a lot further by trying to cooperate with people than by threatening them. In the exceptional cases, you'll get a lot further by playing smart than by playing violent.