Do the artists that are not in the 1% actually benefit from IP or does it hinder them from building new art based on other art? It seem to me that IP only benefits the top players.
IP law gives young or up-and-coming artists leverage in negotiations.
Can you give me an example of the situation you are picturing?
Simply because I can't see what you mean by artists being hindered by IP, artists try to create original work, and derivative work from other IP is usually re-interpreted enough to fall under fair use. I can't picture a situation where artists could be hindered on their creations due to IP owned by others.
Photographers massively benefit from IP protection.