I only just realised that the people who develop the software (in general) are people who want their creation (their code) to be in as many things as possible and to contribute to a forward progression of computing, totally undisturbed by the idea that they may be credited simply as one of tens of thousands of names on a supply chain list of open source software that go into making a modern program.
And artists (in general) do not feel that way.
The closest creative equivalent of this is having an IP being public domain/Creative Commons/copyleft, and having any artist, or writer do anything with the world, character, or pre-existing stories. The difference between software development and the creative field is that the industry for software development actively promotes open-source software as both independent programmers and billion-dollar tech companies are very reliant on these tools. The idea is that people produce proprietary tools using these open-source tools so it's a system still based on profit and not on altruism. Meanwhile, IP's and certification of authenticity are highly valued, and no entertainment giant will willingly make their properties in the public domain if it's massive. It's very rare for any known IP made within the last century to enter the public domain, the most well-known public domain property I can think of is Winnie the Pooh which was first publicized in 1924. It's easy to see how the market goes why making IP's public domain isn't something artists or writers are pushing for.
That being said, I don't think art or media thrives only because of IP laws. SCP is under the Creative Common's license, meaning anyone can make a profit from any ideas made with the content inside the website, including video games or short films. As much as people lament the quality of the content of the website recently, I think a lot of amazing creative projects spawned because of its type of licensing. Really I think creativity actually thrives in an environment in which creators do not care, or do not need to worry about licensing issues.
Culturally though, I think the population of writers and artists are not the type of people who see a benefit in AI. Seems like the community of people here are not the kind of people who generally think they can lead their own company, if not demonize the prospect of profit-based incentives. At least a lot of Anti-AI artists come off like that because they seem adamant that the only form of employment that they can have is working under a major company, and relying on unions to negotiate their salary. Nothing wrong with that, but compare this to people in the tech field, where there is a sizable portion of people who constantly change jobs to keep a stable income, not much solidarity with fellow workers. Now that being said, there are plenty of artists who do job hopping regularly and doing well, but I always get the impression there are many artists who do not have the confidence to market themselves and pursue business leadership roles. I see a lot of people wanting to be lead character designers, directors, head writers, etc, for major projects but I rarely see people who dream about wanting to make their own firm. They view forming their own independent studio as something, understandably, way beyond them. Meanwhile techbro startups are a dime a dozen.
