Your argument is ”Corporate/Govt Sponsors, Kickstarter, and Patreon exist”. That’s fine and all, but they have their own problems.
A one-time funding model like sponsorship/grants and Kickstarter is fundamentally un-meritocratic. Money is given to promises of quality or broad appeal, not the actual attainment of it.
Patreon/subscription presupposes either a serial format or long-term commitment to producing many works. Attempting to use periodic small donations to fund a single long-form / high-labor work adds a burden on the creator to maintain a circus of “progress updates” and unrelated “rewards” to make the petty donorati feel adequately compensated for their “generosity”.
There tends to be a mindset of "we can't replicate every current business model without copyright, so it must be preserved." That's a false argument for two big reasons:
1. Creativity adapts to the environment available. The guy who whines "I can't make my artistic vision without the current licensing/copyright financing model to bankroll it" isn't that different from an artist in 1600 whining "I can't make my vision because CNC milling does not exist." If you want to tell a story, you'll find a way to make a go of it with the tools you have. Maybe you'll have to make a lower budget version, or come up with an installment format to make it viable-- sometimes it's the constraints that give creative works their charm.
2. Could we be missing out on entire new styles of expression because of copyright? Collaborative and evolutionary works, especially at scale, has always been touchy under a regime that requires attribution and ownership. Maybe the Great American Wiki replaces the Great American Novel. Voluntary open licensing doesn't actually help there-- compliance is still complex, expensive, and time consuming, even if it's done with a good intent.
As for crowdfunding, I'd say it's extremely meritocratic once bootstrapped. Once the system has been around for a while, it becomes clear who delivers.
That is not my argument. My argument is that supporting this one form of monetization does not justify the existence of copyright. Tons of creative work exists outside that system now and existed long before copyright was a thing. Additionally, the negative aspects of the system far outweigh any monetary benefits creators may see from it.
A one-time funding model like sponsorship/grants and Kickstarter is fundamentally un-meritocratic. Money is given to promises of quality or broad appeal, not the actual attainment of it.
Patreon/subscription presupposes either a serial format or long-term commitment to producing many works. Attempting to use periodic small donations to fund a single long-form / high-labor work adds a burden on the creator to maintain a circus of “progress updates” and unrelated “rewards” to make the petty donorati feel adequately compensated for their “generosity”.