A subtle but general question in copyright law is the basis of a lawsuit: to what extent can a work of fiction embody the conclusions of historical research about specific people in its plot without counting as "plagiarism".

Viewing copyright as a system for encouraging authorship,

the answer is clear: this should be permitted, because prohibiting it does not serve that goal and instead obstructs it. A fictional work is not a substitute for a historical work -- they do not compete.

However, if you use the propaganda term "property" to conceptualize copyright, it will bias you in the wrong direction. You might unconsciously start from the assumption that authors (in practice, more often the publishing companies that published their work) are entitled to maximum power regardless of what effects that has.

This is one of the reasons to reject and shun the term "intellectual property." The other reason is that it's an over generalization about several disparate and unrelated laws. If you assume they are similar, you are likely to misunderstand each of them.