@Foyer8754 law speech for official documents just works very differently. than normal speaech. If you ask me as an artist providing art-assets for indiegames, I wrote my own wording in the FAQ on top of the legal part.
However I let my licence write by a professional NY lawyer. Not only to be absolutely sure the wording is correct, but also that it will hold up in case of a lawsuit. That's why this document got so huge in the first place, it is not my fault, but a problem with the US copyright system which needed to be addressed even for someone like me operating from Austria. Like always there is a huge difference between official documents/ contracts compared to casual agreements, but former might at some point may potentially be important and then the agreement better is very clear and waterproof.
The problem with a licence like this never is the intented audience who buys the assets and uses them to make a game, but malicious actors.
The existence of this paragraph you put in is in there, that somebody is not just making a minimal change, e.g. changing a pixel or a color or does other minimal changes and reuploads it. And that is what is meant with "derivative work is owned by the artist". It's literally the law protection for me for circumventing this malicious practice and have an easy way to step down on this should it ever happen.
Also the changes to the licence so far have been little additions for clarifications and things like usage for NFT or AI which weren't foreseeable at the time i made the assetpacks. For both of those things very clear amendments have been made and also it needs to be worded like that, because how the legal system works in those cases. However there is a changelog at the bottom, which outlines all the changes ever made as well, which is required.
From the legal side I am afraid that those things need to be written the way they are, at least that's what my lawyer told me and he is the professional in the field.
On the other hand if you buy assets from me you can be sure that everything from the ground up, like having a solid licence in place, was handled professionally. And that's reflected in the price.
If it's different with other creators selling things on itch.io, probably it's because they did not consult and pay a lawyer for setting up their terms, which also for you as a client can mean that potentially there are a lot of legal loopholes with getting those assets. The licence does not only retain some expected rights for me as a seller, but it also grants you very clear rights as a purchaser, which is as soon as games become a more professional endeavour and you sell them, of huge importance.
If you feel insecure about my assets, you can always check out some of the games which use them.
Amongst others: Vampire Survivors, Symphony of War, Gestalt Steam & Cinder, Tiny Thor, Pathway, Alterium shift...
Those are some bigger titles and I am happy to have provided assets from my packs for them.