Let me begin by stating that DRG Publishing has TWO registered copyrights, both in 2005. One for a publication titled "Lets have A Party!" and the other titled "Woodworking For Women." DRG may well have a periodical copyright that is used by magazines and newspapers but that copyright covers the magazine in general and is not specific to any particular article or pattern.
Quilter's World has no registered copyrights and White Birches has no registered copyrights. Registered copyrights are very important to those who market protectable products because it allows the copyright owner to collect statutory damages as well as attorney fees in federal court. Otherwise the cost of enforcing a registered copyright would be prohibitive to the copyright owner. Not bothering to register a copyright is an indicator of bad management or of a non-copyrightable product. Imagine Disney not registering a copyright on the motion picture "Monsters Inc". That would be silly. But why waste money trying to register something the Copyright Office will not accept? That is why individual patterns are not often registered.
Assume Quilter's World did have a registered copyright on the quilt pattern. The moment Quilter's World voluntarily sells you a pattern through your purchase of the magazine, that pattern and the right to make the item belongs to you. Even if the design is covered by the copyright, when Quilter's World sells you the pattern it gives you permission to make the item unless there is a written contract saying otherwise. In 1908 the Supreme Court settled the issue of copyright owners imposing restrictions on the further use or sale of their products by ruling that placing a written limitation on the product did not make that limitation binding upon the purchaser:
"In our view the copyright statutes, while protecting the owner of the copyright in his right to multiply and sell his production, do not create the right to impose, by notice, such as is disclosed in this case, a limitation at which the book shall be sold at retail by future purchasers, with whom there is no privity of contract."
Bobbs-Merril vs Straus, 210 U.S. 339 (1908)
In the Supreme Court ruling, Baker v Selden, 101 US 99 (1879), the court stated that a claimed copyright on "patterns for cutting dresses and basques for ladies, and coats, jackets" was "printed and published for information, and not for use in themselves" and the copyright owner could not control the making of the clothing items.
Any use limitation stated on the pattern or in the magazine is not enforceable. Secondly, still assuming Quilter's World held a registered copyright on the pattern or the design on the quilt, once the pattern is sold to you and you make the quilt, any photograph you take of YOUR copy (the quilt you made) is not covered by the registered copyright that Quilters World has of their copy of the quilt. Their registered copyright does not extend to items made from the pattern they sold you. You are completely within your rights to take and display photographs of your copy (the quilt you made) because it belongs to you, not to the copyright owner. Imagine Harley-Davidson telling you that you could not take a display a picture of your new motorcycle. Does that sound practical? In addition, if you are selling items made from the pattern (still assuming Quilters World has a registered copyright), copyright law specifically grants permission to do use photographs to sell the item.
17 U.S.C. § 113 Scope of exclusive rights in pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works
(c) In the case of a work lawfully reproduced in useful articles that have been offered for sale or other distribution to the public, copyright does not
include any right to prevent the making, distribution, or display of pictures or photographs of such articles in connection with advertisements or
commentaries related to the distribution or display of such articles, or in connection with news reports.
The statute specifically states "does not include" the "right to prevent" the use of pictures to sell the item. Either way, Quilters World loses this argument. No copyright means no right to limit use and/or even if there is a copyright in the pattern or design it does not extend to the item made from the pattern sold to you.
Written permission is not required for making anything from a lawfully acquired pattern.