Stephen Kinsella is mistaken as usual. If I create an artwork, that artwork does not hinder him from creating his own artwork.
The problem is if someone copyrights something that is so simple that others may reproduce it by mistake. He is using that absurd case in order to dismantle property rights.
I've debated Stephen Kinsella before and he believes that you voluntarily hand over money to a thief that wants to steal your money. I counter-argued that you might *involuntarily* hand over money, due to the threat of force. There can be no voluntarism when force or threat is involved. He had no capacity to argue for his point and resorted to sophistry instead.