You have to answer the moral question for yourself, and convince others of your position using rational arguments. The argument that it feels right to you and your peers isn't very strong, an argument derived from first principles or maybe utilitarian or consequentialist perspectives would me more convincing.

One of the first principle that I hold is that the products of an individuals labor should belong to the individual and she should have control over it, regardless if it is a wooden spoon or a work of art.

In common law countries like the US, UK, Australia, and Canada, this has not historically been a principle of our societies, and has never been a part of our legal systems. Copyright is a purely statutory concept that does not relate to any moral law. That's one reason why, in the US, we have fair use exceptions for criticism, education, news reporting, and research.

Strangely, although civil law countries often declare a moral right of the individual to control the fruits of their labor, the law stomps all over that moral right with many exceptions to copyright: http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/UrhG.htm#I6

This is not a legal question of interpreting an existing law. The law itself should be rewritten in a way that makes the biggest possible number of people OK with it.

> One of the first principle that I hold is

I dont. Now what? We're back to deciding whose first principles should count. The only way to get a set of generally acceptable first principles is to vote on them. Again, you cant circumvent democracy.

You can, you should and we do. For example, the US is a republic and not a democracy. People have unalienable rights that cannot be voted on.

Even if 80% of Americans would like to re-institute slavery tomorrow, it would be wrong and illegal.