https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights
I kind of like the idea of allowing verbatim redistribution if the author or their estate is demonstrably not planning to make money off it, but attribution and integrity of the work should be preserved.
Big IP holders make a large effort to mix both of those so they argue in bad faith that their profit advances human culture. Do not fall for it, they are very different things, and if somebody proposes extra protection for moral rights, only those big IP holders will be against it.
You are appealing to people's ignorance (including your own) by evoking an idyllic past that doesn't actually exist. The copyright problems between individual authors are substantively indistinguishable and the law correctly acknowledges this. The only difference is completely insubstantial: irrational emotional appeal.
“It also marked the first time that copyright had been vested primarily in the author, rather than the publisher, and also the first time that the injurious treatment of authors by publishers was recognized; regardless of what authors signed away, the second 14-year term of copyright would automatically return to them.”
Your source, as best I can tell, has nothing to do with work for hire or collaborative works.
While trying to find more information, I came across this article from Cornell[0] that suggests the idea that an employer would own the work of its employees was a novel concept that originated in the late 1800s and was codified in 1909. That’s long after the Statute of Anne and early US copyright laws.
While your idea is certainly not one I’m familiar with, you seem relatively confident in it. Is there something I’m missing?
0 - https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti...
Copyright itself only lasted about 15 years originally, which is a reasonable amount of time to commercialise a work. If you haven't done anything commercial with it in 15 years, it seems reasonable to me to allow the public to enjoy the work.