Libertarian types tend to fall into two categories: those who fanatically support copyright law (I think Ayn Rand counted among those) and those who don't give much of a shit one way or the other, or even oppose it. Here is a case that neatly illustrates why I tend toward the second of these views:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/13/photographer-centre-bizarre-court-battle-reveals-sued-monkey/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/12086397/Monkey-who-took-selfie-can-not-own-copyright-to-the-photo-judge-rules.htmlShort version: monkey takes selfie with camera photographer had set up. PETA argues that monkey, not photographer, owns copyright to photo, and that they (PETA) are best suited to administer it. Court finds against PETA, but it costs the photographer a small fortune. However, had he not opposed the case, presumably he would no longer have had the right to use his own photo. Plus, it creates an interesting problem for researchers who set up those tripwire cameras to follow the movement of rare animals...
PETA as it is already was fairly low in my estimation of large organizations (somewhere between Scientology and ISIS, I would think). Now they have sunk even lower. Laer as slangkak op die seebodem, as the saying goes.
Anyway, in the absence of extensive copyright law, the problem would not exist in the first place.