That wasn't my reading of the parent at all.

Snow White the animated film wouldn't have been made if copyright was perpetually inherited and some distant Grimm relative refused to give Disney permission to make the film. This is relevant to your original point - that "I find complaining about someone’s artistic endeavors not being free to be absurd in it’s own way." You may find it absurd, but if it were not so, a work you seem to admire might never have been produced.

There is a cultural component to art. It draws from the culture and gives back to the culture. Long copyright terms - and I find current copyright terms very long - prevent future artists from drawing on the culture to produce new, transformative works.

Disney was able to draw on cultural material from the prior 100 years to make Snow White. But if the current copyright-extension-cycle continues, it seems plausible that Disney films - and all works created in the same period - may never fall into the public domain in the USA, and future artists will not be able to enjoy the same free use of cultural source material as Disney itself has done.

Of course, my point was about distribution of original works, not inspiration or even creative appropriation. Maybe I needed to specify that? Or maybe this was well implied by the wider conversation around Spotify’s distribution of original works. Either way, it’s a separate discussion.

To be clear, Disney did not publish and distribute copies of Grimm’s Fairy Tales.

And let’s consider what Disney would have done if prevented from using the Snow White tale for his animation project? Would he have just given up?? Let’s not kid ourselves. He would have done what great artists tend to do: be creative and find another solution. There were mountains of hurdles in making this film and that would have been a mole hill. It would have been a different film, sure. It may have been better. We do not know.

The modern Disney corporation is a separate entity, to be sure.

You open up a new basket of issues here. For example, films are commonly produced from narrative works in other domains, personal accounts, etc. The royalty system allows for more than simply profit. In films, it also protects from the original authors, or storytellers and their families from what can be something like libel. It allows them to deny permission when accounts are exaggerated for audience appeal, when it may unjustly disgrace their reputation. This is only a basic example of why these things exist. It does sort of sometimes suck for artists but artists but they tend to better understand the issues at hand.

Compare it to female counterparts in, say, Hayao Miyazaki cartoons where women are proactive and actually have character development.

It was consistent with filmmaking tradition when Snow White was made. It's not anymore because the previous century's worth of work is locked up behind essentially perpetual copyright.

Disney used public domain works as inspiration but then pulled up the ladder behind them so that future artists can't do the same.