I do not submit these scenarios to be argumentative. The broadness of ownership this article spells out seems misleading.
When I first saw this article posted, I was immediately too exhausted to even try to parse out the message. I don't think it's the last word on copyright. My initial thought was that many, many designs that the author considers to have copyright protection are based on previous designs, which would invalidate the later copyright claims.
I hold the line at don't profit off someone else's work.