The problem is our respective post are sort of coming at the problem from opposite ends. Though, I agree with you, for the most part. Mine is attempting (lazily, I perhaps have to admit) to formulate how a post-copyright world functions. And, again, I agree, for the most part, with what you point out. Fundraising has been more and more a useful model employed by many writers and artists, no doubt. But all of that is still backed by copyright. Even in Dickens and Dostoevsky's day. (Though, in Tsarist Russia, it was the printer and not the author who obtained copyright.). Dickens, however, (in typical author fashion of often going from feast to famine) had almost all of his works circulated in the United States (where he was extremely popular) outside of the control of copyright, as, at the time, and as most developing nations do, the United States (much as China had done with technology in the nineties) neglected, for the most part, protecting foreigns works in favor of 'building themselves up' quickly. This was (to draw in your point about live performances) helpful to Dickens after a fashion, in that, at one point, his speaking tours ere his primary means of income. (However, part of that can be attributed not just to his popularity as a writer, but his phenomenal skill as an orator, so more than anything else, he may represent the exception that allows certain individuals to rise so much within the sphere of social influence.) But, to me, it still remains an unanswered question as to what would happen if, say, writing a 'Game of Thrones' under such a model, where a studio would have access to the material with no restrictions. The only thing that might hinder it is that multiple such entities would have the same rights, and they would most likely not want to step on each others toes (only for the reason they would likely see it as dividing their potential audience and thereby dividing the result money stream), and contractual and wink-wink-nudge-nudge agreements might become common place between them in such circumstances. And given the fact of the enormous amount of capital required for such undertakings (it's unlikely something on the order of Marvel film would be generated solely by crowd-funding) it would be unlikely, I would think, for many upstart companies to produce such, thereby locking in the defacto 'gentlemen agreements'. But there is also the question of just how much social impart such media would have, without the angel of home distribution, something that is fundamental to replicating the modern myths-poetic frameworks of western societies. And in any regard a truly post-copyright world, would seem to have the possibility of reshaping both culture and society in ways that are not apparent or predictable in extrapolating from system that are still in essence backed by it. After all, even Creative Commons and Free Software exists wholly on the back of copyright.
In regards to contracts, I think we only need to look at history: the case comes to mind wether agents of Thomas Edison saw a screening of the film 'Voyage to the Moon' and bribed a theatre operator to get a copy of the film made, so it was Edison, showcasing it in his private theatre chains (he owned an enormous amount of patents in motion picture technology, which is why Hollywood is movie capital of the United States, to get beyond the legal reach of Edison in New York), thereby having extracted the commercial value of the film prior to the director managing to bring it to the United States. Still, this leaves out the entire possibility of home distribution (outside of the most egregious contracts and locked-down hardware (so far as I can see), which, looking at the way things are going, may be the case under the current system as well).
I will completely agree as it regards to live performance. But that is a very small segment of so-called creative work. And even then we are still left with the perennial problem of the lion's share of the resultant capital going not to the actual performers, to the investor class. But, then again, copyright or no, maybe we'll always have that as the touchstone of commonality no matter what social, political, or artist upheaval does or doesn't come to fruition.