I have less problems with the artist claiming copyright than corporations that are copyright holders claiming their rights. Also, copyright should never last more than 25 years. After that period, public domain forever. Anyone should have an opportunity to make money of their creation, if they wish to do so. But 25 years is ample time to do so, for anything and everything. To my knowledge that is the actual principle behind copyright.
What the lawyers of copyright holders (with the allowance of government) have turned the whole copyright system into....that isn't fair to anyone, except the recipients. The purpose of an artist is to create, not indefinitely getting payed for a thing they managed to pull of all those many years ago. Only results in only a few getting richer and a creative laziness. In no other profession this type of behavior is allowed.
It should actually be the rule that after the artist passed onto whatever realm they believed in, their work becomes automatically public domain. No exceptions allowed. Collected taxes are spent on enabling artists to do their thing. Or, at least, a platform is provided for. So, you pay through taxes, if you like the work of the artist, you purchase it in one or more forms and now you also need to pay the copyright holding corporation for every time you want to play it/use it or whatever.
At some point enough money (for one product/song/painting/art) is transferred to the copyright holder. And if community funds, like taxes have been involved in any way or form during the creation of the piece? Public domain, after 25 years or passing of the artist(s). Whatever comes first. You (the general public) are already getting fleeced at least twice. And with tax support, public domain in a reasonable period is implied. Else, just stop diverting community funds to enable artists.
Culture has become as expensive as it is, because of the greed that copyright holders (usually corporations) think they are entitled to.
Greed and entitlement, what could go wrong.....