If art wants to be free, how should artists be paid?

[Mister Mets]

A big focus on the Writers Guild and Screen Actors Guild strikes is how to compensate artists (I'm using the term broadly here to apply to writers, pencilers, actors, directors, painters, musicians, etc.) when there's an intersection of three issues. AI doesn't compensate the artists whose work it repurposes. The streaming services don't want to be open about how much money they make or don't make, and customers want to pay as little as possible. There is rampant piracy as well, with the mantra that information wants to be free.

This begs the question of how artists should be paid.
Should art be something made by the independently wealthy? This way there's no concern about paying them.
Should the government pay artists? If so, how should they determine what counts as art, and how much money an artist makes.
Should art by advertiser-supported? Will this lead to compromises?

This seems to be an important cultural question.

[Attila Kiss]

Piracy is a problem.

Streaming providers don't have to disclose how much money they make. They pay per movie for a certain time for the price production companies agreed upon with them. Needs to be noted that a giant like Netflix, cut out for about a year every "big" movie from its lineup for two purposes, to get a better price from companies whose movies they stream, and to spoil their subscribers with their own originals. They went into a deficit of 6 billion dollars to achieve that. I think it was smart. I bet they get now a much better deal for movies made outside Netflix than they did before. That's just the way business works.

As for the AI repurposing the art. So what?
One of the first stories we learned in grade One was all stories about moral issues. One of them was about a privileged person butchering a pig and roasting it on the open flame while the poor neighborhood gathered around. He did not let anyone have a piece unless they paid him handsomely. People could not afford his price. They could only watch with droll in their mouths. One man stood in the path of the wind and took all the smell he could sniff in while munching on a piece of a week-old bread. The privileged man did not like that. Demanded to be paid for the "aroma". The poor guy refused to pay. The privileged one took him to court. The judge called the privileged over. Took out the wallet from his pocket. Shook it in front of him, and jingled the change in it. He asked the privileged, Did you hear that sound? Yes, he did. That was his payment. End of story.

Artists should not get paid if the AI uses their style to create completely new art. Why would they?
Good artists like Frazetta created real art on canvas and people paid for them. It was a good price but still peanuts in comparison to those the new owners of the art get now when they re-sell the painting. Does Frazetta get a piece of that profit? Of course not.

Does Roberto De La Torre pay something to the Buscema estate for copying John's work (marvelously I might add) in the new series of Conan The Barbarian? I doubt it.
Do all those artists who do homage to the Spawn cover pay Toddfather a pizzo? I don't think so, and there are many who made a living out of it. I bet they are the most vocal in these complaints against AI.
Why would an AI's work produced to look in style similar to someone else's work, have to pay?

As a writer, I'm not afraid of AI.
NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY can come up with the idea for a story I will/I did.
That is just not possible. And if an AI can figure out what makes my stories tick and is using that formula for its own creation, then so be it.