Copyright can only compensate you for owning something, not for having made it.
Artists don't get paid or credited because of the time and effort itself or the art itself, they are paid only if they have done right magic ritual before and after that decides if they "own" their own work.
In the current system, it's not really possible to compensate people for their actual work, you can only do it indirectly by grafting "ownership" onto it. The ability to "own" what you made because you "made" it, is very limited and doesn't always apply, and even when it does, the fact that you only get compensated because you own it or hold the "rights" to copy it, instead of get compensated for it's very existence, is proof that even the most well-off creators or laborers are never truly being compensated for their actual work, but rather for taking part in the grand legalese spectacle of it all.
These musings all sound pretty fundamental, so if any part is wrong it'll probably be Very Wrong Very Hard, but i've had them in my head for long enough, that i figure this was a good opportunity to take them out for a test drive in a Replies section.