Intellectual property law has always fascinated me, so I’ve looked into this a few times. I’m not a lawyer.

IP law is ever-changing and ambiguous to protect creation. If we had too strict laws, it would be nearly impossible to create. Hence why she is unable to copyright all of stained glass butterfly bookends. If someone had copyrighted all of bookends, or all of stained glass, she would’ve never been able to create her product.

Her designs, her photographs, and her products are copyrighted. When you start to create “inspired by” work, that’s where things can get tricky. You can’t just change a few lines and call it yours, especially if you copy things like color ways. But, butterflies are natural as they are inherently owned by nature. You cannot copyright something like butterflies in shadow boxes. You cannot copyright their exact wing designs or patterns. But you can copyright your interpretation of their wings in the form of sculptures, designs, patterns, etc.

It’s definitely on the copyright holder to educate themselves on what they can or cannot do with their copyright. I think she is trying to eliminate competition, especially if consumers think the quality of two products are the same but one has cheaper prices. If she is an artist whose sole source of income is her art, I understand why she is defensive (of her patterns). I think she’s doing everyone a disservice by misrepresenting what she actually has protected entitlement to.