I will always recognise copyright as a right, but there are problems around artistic use.
An example and some questions for you:
Pachelbel's Canon in D has a 4 chord sequence - just four chords - that is subsequently used in countless pieces of music.
My opinion is that every sale of Canon in D [the entire work] should go to Pachelbel's estate for eternity, for all I care(1). However, over his life other artists should have been able to negotiate - at the least - use of that combination. After his death that combination should have been freely available (including as homage to Pachelbel). What's your opinion on that?
This is simply 4 lousy chords: inevitably in the centuries since his death other composers would have come up with the combination without any reference or knowledge of Pachelbel – so why are they to be denied a product of their own minds?
I've just written a novel in which I thought I was being 'genre-istically' original: but I find on finishing the manuscript it fits pretty much exactly in some important techniques of an avant-garde movement called readymade - which I've never read the authors of, or knew - calling into question the whole notion of whether originality is even possible. I fell on these techniques because they fitted what I was doing. Despite I had no knowledge of their existence previously, am I to be excluded from using them? (Noting using those techniques is not a breach of copyright, but I include in order to query the notion of originality, again, which copyright requires.)
IP is a legitimate property right, but is not black and white like rights over tangible assets. There has to be a case for artistic use.
Include in your answer your definition of artistic originality. Include in that answer why the artist, say, who painted the first nude, could not then copyright (and exclude) the painting of every nude thereafter.
For example, say I want to use one of Orwell's characters in a novel - which the literary agency of his estate refuses permission for on a blanket basis. So long as my use of that character is obvious (or credited) surely that raises interest in the earlier work, and thus renewed sales interest. Indeed, I don't see how it could possibly lead to a fall in sales of the original work.
Why doesn't the literary agent for Orwell’s estate have to therefore prove damages and sue me only on that basis? (If there is no loss of a sales trend, or it goes up, what the hell are they suing over, other than, ironically, to profit from my original use of that character in a very different context, with original significations?)