A patent protects a means of doing something. It doesn't protect the final form.
In this case "concept" has a specific meaning. Not just an "idea", which obviously is not copyrightable. But the general structure of a creative work from the consumers experience.
For instance, rewriting a novel with new names, new locations, swapping out details not necessary for the plot with equivalent supporting details, etc.
IANAL, so I have no idea what the legalities of copyrighting a "concept" are. But that is what is meant by the concept of a creative work. It is the core of the creative work, and creative works are what copyright was intended to protect/incentivize.
From what I can understand of Wikipedia's summary of the Tetris Holdings vs Xio case, the copyright was about "look and feel". The judge reiterated that gameplay cannot be copyrighted, which was also my understanding, but content (art, style, etc) can. There was also something called "trade dress" which seems to relate to the confusion in customer's minds about which game is which.
(English is my second language and legalese is my I-dont-understand-it-at-all language, so things like "trade dress" sound meaningless to me. But it's definitely not copyright of gameplay elements!)
> For instance, rewriting a novel with new names, new locations, swapping out details not necessary for the plot with equivalent supporting details, etc.
If you copy and distribute a novel/script, or parts of it, then surely that is copyright infringement. But if you "steal" the idea and change enough details that it's not the same thing anymore (i.e. you cannot point at chunks of the clone and claim "this is lifted almost verbatim from the original"), my bet is that it's either entirely legal (nothing you can do about it) or a form of fraud unrelated to copyright. Isn't copyright about copying/distributing the original work, or parts of it? If you make a clone that is similar but different, then surely that's not copyright infringement?
I agree that swapping out enough details will eventually avoid copyright infringement, but its possible to swap out low-level specifics and still be so obviously a structural and topical "copy" that someone can get into trouble.
For instance, movies that were too similar to predecessors have been found to be infringing.
Don't worry, "trade dress" is pretty meaningless to the casual native English speaker too, it is a technical legal term that doesn't really mean anything more in day to day English to anyone else than it does to you. (My guess is it may have meant more to an English speaker in the 18th century or something!)
In this case "concept" has a specific meaning. Not just an "idea", which obviously is not copyrightable. But the general structure of a creative work from the consumers experience.
For instance, rewriting a novel with new names, new locations, swapping out details not necessary for the plot with equivalent supporting details, etc.
IANAL, so I have no idea what the legalities of copyrighting a "concept" are. But that is what is meant by the concept of a creative work. It is the core of the creative work, and creative works are what copyright was intended to protect/incentivize.