This reflection was inspired by this article.
You are right off course. And I understand your indignation. However it is very complicated matter similar to author rights of musicians. The problem is that we overpopulated the planet with people, ideas, thoughts and words. The moral principles are so diverse as personal preferences about meal. In this chaotic labyrinth of possibilities is just matter of survival, that means necessity of getting income. That what it is. Among all the people spending their lives on the planet, not every one of them invents a wheel. For the simple fact that the first one who did it, that's enough. Nobody cares if someone else has the creativity to invent the wheel or not. It just doesn't matter. Even if all next generations are able to invent the wheel, we just do not have so many "first places" for everyone.
But this case is an extreme case. In this case we accept the posibility that everyone around can be that creative as you are, just not so lucky for not having invented it before you. But I don't know that. For example: I'm looking at the pictures and I recognise some figures that I know from my career in circus school (and this was a long time ago in 1986). I don't think "pathent pending" idea will work in acrobatics or dance. So, in case of a separeted acrobatic element my argument is: nobody can be the "happy" owner of it. But in case of choreographic composition is another matter. Nobody can be the owner of one letter, but you are the owner and responsible of what you write.
We all know that is an utopian case. Statistically, 80% of people don't have the capacity to invent something new, they just get carried away by the stream. The artists are not an exception. Most of them cite someone else's phrases and some even worry to write these sentences with calligraphy. From point of view of the audience is wonderful. More variety of artists telling the story in the same language. Is guilty the audience for enjoying the phrase spoken by someone other than its author? I'm sorry but they don't care at all.
What is the problem here? The moral aspect of an artist? Well, lets see around. The true relationships only manifested in nature. Nature did not invent moral codes, humans invented them for their own convenience. The natural principle is simple (as everything great): Eat or be eaten. If your competition walks, you have to run. If you can not create - copy. It's matter of survival. In the other hand, we have an argument that every artist must develop his own creativeness, uniqueness and whatever. The thing is - maybe they not born for this. Are you willing to lose your life time trying to develop talent where none exists? Neither they are willing to loose time creating when they can steal.
When I was studying in circus school we invented a lot of stuff and movements and acrobatic elements that we thought nobody tried before. It was just the game for us we just playing without any perspective and sence of "ownership". Now I see a lot of movements we did in that time made by people today, they call it "parkour" or "free run" and some people actually think that they are inventors of something. I look at them and I'm laughing. The same goes for vertical dancers, circus apparatus inventors, creators of "new" and unique training systems and so on.
Once I told to a young enthusiastic guy: You didn't create anything, it's just your brain is got ready to understand it until now.
In many years I have taught many people and they are making money with my knowledge. Do I have to think that they should give me some of their profits for the rest of their lives? Should the whole mankind be condemned to pay a commission to the descendants of the dude who invented the wheel?
.