Nature and the Public Domain

The basis for the rule that you can't claim rights to nature is that the birds, bees, flowers, and the like are in the public domain. An artist can't copyright the spotted pattern of a leopard, a taxidermist can't copyright a stuffed leopard, and a Hollywood model maker couldn't protect a synthetic head that replicates a leopard's. For example, in 1987, Peter Rachel, a maker of synthetic animal heads, was not able to stop Banana Republic from using similar but not identical animal heads in their retail stores.

The Limits of Copyright Law

Unless an artist can demonstrate a variation on what occurs naturally -- for example, a corn candle in which individual kernels were artistically modified -- you can't stop someone from copying nature under copyright laws. This, however, is not an issue for many artists who borrow from nature, since variations on nature occur inherently in the creative process. In fact, these artists might argue that their goal is to transform or process nature (or to paraphrase author Franz Grillparzer, "art compares to nature like wine to the grape").

The less a work replicates nature, the easier it is to protect under copyright law. For example, the makers of plush animals that combine fanciful and representational elements of animals have consistently stopped infringers. In another instance, a 1993 case, the company Wildlife Express created and sold duffel bags that had heads and tails resembling bears, pandas, ducks, and elephants. The company sued to stop Carol Wright Sales from selling similar duffel bags. The court ruled for Wildlife because the animal heads and tails contained imaginative artistic expressions and were not lifelike representations.