The natural right perspective to intellectual property is based on natural rights theories or epistemology of human rights. the conceptual basis of IP is that you have the right because you are a human being. There is a strong argument that the rights that one has are not a reward but a recognition of ones nature such that everybody has those rights. Philosophers like Emanuel Kant have argued that IP should be protected because it is an extension of human persona. There has been debate on distinction between utilitarian approach to IT and natural rights tradition approach however UDHR encompasses both traditions.
Article 17 protects property article 27 (1) focuses on access to information and access to cultural rights. Access and participation
27(2) focuses on property – issue of exclusive rights. This focuses on property exclusive rights both material and moral right of a creator or innovator. Economic rights tend to have a utilitarian connotation to them. For example Nyambane has a right to economically benefit from playing the character Moi in Red Corner, he deserves a cheque and this is an economic right. The right to benefit financially from creativity.
Any singer has the right to be named as the writer of a song, this is a moral right. an actor has a right to have his name on the credits, this is a moral right, receiving money for acting is the economic right. 27(1) and 27(2) when read together constitute a balance in Intellectual Property, you want to ensure that those who have produced cultural products are rewarded. John Locke argued from a labour theory of IP of property, he argued that if any individual finds land which is farrow and they apply their labour to improve the land they make the land useful and ought to claim ownership of that land this is usufructuary. This theory in IP says that IP ought to be protected where one has made a creation.
The other angle to John Locke’s argument is that one can appropriate that which was pre-existing so long as one leaves enough and as good for the public domain. This is related to the argument of common use.