Copyright is said to protect artists and make it possible to make money from your own art, protect the integrity of your work, as well as the fact of your authorship.
The claim is essentially that it benefits the artist first and foremost.
So let's dissect that.
The idea that you can only make money with copyright isn't true. There are indeed forms of selling art that only make sense while copyright exists, and that would include things like art books and selling licences for example. However when it comes to independent artists, most make their money through commissions and freelance work. I will get back to working for companies/ studios later but when it comes to commissions that essentially already works without copyright.
Let's say someone wants an artist to paint their dog. They will go to that artist, tell them what they want, and pay the artist for the production of the artwork.
What happens with that artwork after the commission is over is irrelevant to the artist, as they are already paid.
So basically by paying for the production rather than the finished work, you can still make money from an digital product that can easily be replicated, without having to rely on intellectual property.
It's just labour like any other.
Now if an artist is currently working for a company, they are indirectly relying on copyright since the company does.
The concept of being paid for production could also be extended to larger projects as well though. You could for example as a studio also make movies where they publish a trailer of sorts, and then finance the production through something like a kickstarter.

However with that said, I don't strive for a capitalist society without copyright. I think that's impossible to be exact, not in theory but in practice, because you will never convince big companies to let go of their intellectual property. And they have too much political power to enact this, without their volition.
But under a society where money isn't needed to survive, literally all of this talk on how artist could still make money is irrelevant.
What I want is for us to get away from the idea that copyright is good and needed for art and that we should hold on to it and the ideology that comes with it.

Currently copyright is just there to benefit big companies. Because they actually benefit from that, since they are the only ones who can reasonably enforce it.
If an independent artist has their art stolen, by let's say some random company that ends up printing it on shirts. That artist might in theory be protected by copyright, but what are they supposed to do. They will most likely not even notice the art theft in the first place, unless they have a bigger platform and one of their followers informs them, and even when they do notice what are they supposed to do? Sue them? With what money, with what time. Even if they did, with bigger companies having better lawyers it doesn't always matter who's right.
They could try reporting and hope something will happen, but in reality art theft is incredibly common online and copyright isn't helping one bit.
Only bigger companies actually have the ability to sue and they will use it.
There also have been many instances where companies misused that, like when apple essentially sues any company using any fruits as their name. Of course that's nonsense but when you are a small startup and suddenly you get threats by apple you're unlikely not to do what they want.
And this is exactly what copyright actually leads to. No protection of art or artist, but simply a money making strategy.
And I don't want to go too deep into all the issues copyright brings, like streaming platforms fighting for licences making it harder and harder to watch any shows, or studios making shitty sequels with the knowledge people will consume It anyway as only that studio can make this sequel.
If you want a deeper dive into it I recommend the videos at the top.
And the same applies to patent laws with the difference being that the harm isn't simply worse art, but medication being gatekept and people dying for it so some CEO can make more money.

So after explaining how copyright is not helping artists financially but mainly bigger companies, what about the other claims from the start.
The idea that the fact of their authorship is only respected with copyright seems ridiculous, because art theft and plagiarism are still different things with the first being the illegal use of art, and the latter claiming someone else's work as your own. You could very much still make plagiarism illegal without copyright, by saying you can use any art but have to give credit or simply not spread misinformation about the origin of the work.

Another point was to protect the artists integrity. Now aside from the fact that copyright doesn't actually protect anyone in that regard currently, this fear that when everyone could freely use your art, someone would certainly do things you don't like with it, is understandable.
However I do believe it's worth it.
“But what if someone uses your art for anti-trans hate for example” well then that should not be tolerated on the basis of hate-speech but not because they used my work for it. Of course I wouldn't like it but think of the possibilities it opens.
Currently any derivative work online is essentially illegal to some extent. Any sort of fan art, fanfiction or cover song that is sold by third parties without proper licence is definitely illegal as they profit from someone else's intellectual property. But even without selling it, you could argue you are benefiting from someone's IP, by it helping you grow your platform.
And yes fair use exists but only in some countries and since the internet is international this usually doesn't hold much merit, especially considering how fair use is generally very vague.
Now the reason all of this can stay on the internet is because these companies know suing your own fans is often a bad financially and harms their public image.
But of course a lot of derivative art does get taken down or people fear making it. Videos get taken down for using 1 second of someone's song and people are very held back on using other peoples material to build something new with it.
And of course this hasn't always been like that. All these classical composers that we adore to this day, constantly stole from each other and made amazing art for it, as copyright simply wasn't a thing back then.
And I think copyright just holds back art greatly.
I believe we should go away from the idea that artists own their art and instead have it be owned by the collective. I think we should encourage derivative work like remixes and fan material on a greater scale and build of each other more, as I think only then can art fully thrive.
No game mechanics being gatekept by single studios or melodies being restricted. This is how I understand democratizing art.
I understand that this can seem very uncomfortable to many artist and of course some do still rely on copyright to survive under capitalism.
I understand not everyone can put their own work in the public domain in the moment, but that's not what I'm asking. This idea of a post copyright society, can only exist in post capitalist society as far as I'm concerned (not in theory but in practice). And I believe without the money incentive copyright, will just naturally disappear and people will be able to fully embrace and create art in all its forms.

In the words of Patricia Taxxon (source: first video on the top)

“No, you shouldn't control how your art is used.
You should have no say over who is or isn't able to be inspired by your work.
No one should have any right to put a stopper in the pipeline of artistic evolution.
Because I hope for a world where ALL art is free.
Not as in "free beer", but as in "free speech"
Because art is the Lord, and copyright is the golden calf."