[Borealid]

I think it's worth mentioning that with a patent, nobody else is allowed to use the patented idea. This holds even if they have never heard of you before, and were entirely unaware your patent (or your version of the patented concept) existed. You are granted a monopoly.

With a copyright, people are allowed to do anything similar to you, so long as they do not derive their work from yours. Someone unaware of your work cannot infringe your copyright. You do not have a monopoly on anything, you are just protected against someone deriving their work from yours directly.

This difference probably factors into how easy it is to win a lawsuit: for a copyright infringement, you need to show they made a copy. You wouldn't be bringing suit in the first place if there were substantial doubt in that area. It also factors into how easy it should be to get a patent vs a copyright: a patent closes off much, much, MUCH more idea-space than a copyright.

[falcor84]

> With a copyright, people are allowed to do anything similar to you, so long as they do not derive their work from yours.

That is patently false for music - a songwriter's claim today that they never heard a slightly similar hook from 40 years ago generally doesn't hold in court.

[Borealid]

The burden of proof of infringement is on the plaintiff in either case.

If you have an obscure patent nobody has ever heard of, you can win the suit by showing that the defendant had the same idea you did - you don't need to show their work derives from yours.

If you have an obscure song nobody has ever heard (or even an unpublished one!) you are going to have a difficult time proving infringement for a similar riff.

Perhaps you're most familiar with litigation around very famous songs, like the Under Pressure / Ice Ice famous case? In those cultural-saturation cases the court may make the assumption that the later party could have been exposed to the work of the earlier one, but that is not the case universally.

[mixmastamyk]

They got George Harrison for a different song that had a similar melody. Don’t think it was identical, though would have to investigate.

[cafard]

Harrison's song was "My Sweet Lord", the song allegedly infringed was "He's So Fine" by some girl group in the 1950s or 1960s. It shouldn't be hard to hear either one. My recollection is that the songs did some pretty much alike.

[tanseydavid]

The group is The Chiffons and according to John Lennon, Harrison “walked right into it — he knew what he was doing.”

[mixmastamyk]

The melody, not the song lyrics.

[amiga386]

It's clearer than you think. Did Dua Lipa hear an obscure Florida reggae band's tune that isn't available on any major platform to listen to any more? It took some time, but eventually the court agreed she'd never heard the song she supposedly copied:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levitating_%28song%29

[amelius]

I think they mean that they can for instance use the song non-professionally.

[falcor84]

How is that different from a patent then? I don't think anyone would sue you for patent infringement against your hobby project. IP only typically becomes an issue when you want to make some money from your work, and then someone claims that it's actually their work, and thus should be their money.

[benji-york]

> I don't think anyone would sue you for patent infringement against your hobby project.

You are mistaken.

[benji-york]

There is no legal distinction between violating copyright "professionally" or not.

[nwallin]

> With a copyright, people are allowed to do anything similar to you, so long as they do not derive their work from yours.

John C. Fogerty famously got sued by John C. Fogerty for sounding too similar to John C. Fogerty.

https://blogs.law.gwu.edu/mcir/case/fantasy-v-fogerty/

[BobaFloutist]

Also, patents are for frankly more important things. It's a much bigger deal if life-saving medicine or a more efficient car are locked out for 100 years than Winnie the Pooh wearing pants.