> Copyright is not a natural human right; it's a construct invented and conferred by governments in order to achieve certain objectives. (It's more like a state license than a right, to be honest; using "right" was a historical masterstroke from the original inventors).
I don't know of a better definition for "natural human right" than "a right/privilege/protection given to everyone automatically, even if they don't know about it or claim it, unless they specifically opt out of it." We get to decide what our "natural human rights" are, and we've decided that you automatically get copyright on your creative works even if you don't know what copyright is. Seems like a good thing, and a natural human right.
That's certainly not the conventional definition of "natural right", nor was it historically. Interestingly, Jefferson, when arguing against patents, made a point that regular property ownership is not a natural right:
"It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society."
> We get to decide what our "natural human rights" are
Words have meaning. You can’t just make things up. The rights we invent through human constructs are the opposite of natural. Copyright is totally arbitrary and nothing at all like (for example) the right one has to their own life.
> "a right/privilege/protection given to everyone automatically, even if they don't know about it or claim it
That's not what copyright was, when it entered the legal landscape; and it still isn't in so many countries. And even where your definition is somewhat accepted, people disagree on what exactly it means (How long should it last? Can it be inherited? Does it apply to this or that? Etc etc). Even simply the fact that it can literally be bought and sold would indicate that it is not a human right at all - those are typically unalienable. It is a commercial right at best.
I don't know of a better definition for "natural human right" than "a right/privilege/protection given to everyone automatically, even if they don't know about it or claim it, unless they specifically opt out of it." We get to decide what our "natural human rights" are, and we've decided that you automatically get copyright on your creative works even if you don't know what copyright is. Seems like a good thing, and a natural human right.