ARTIST NOTE: “Ideas” aren't really what come into play with copyright infringement claims -- “Ideas and discoveries are not protected by the copyright law, although the way in which they are expressed may be.” [emphasis added] (www.copyright.gov)

ELEMENTS OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT:

Substantial similarity between two works must be established in order to evaluate the existence of copyright infringement. It is a two part analysis:

The "extrinsic test", wherein a complex analysis is conducted of the concepts underlying the work, and
The "intrinsic test", wherein within the judgment of an ordinary person the expression of the works are compared. If there is substantial similarity in ideas, then the trier of fact must decide whether there is substantial similarity in the expressions of the ideas so as to constitute infringement.

REAL-LIFE EXAMPLE:

The Hollywood Reporter recounted that Usher and Justin Beiber were sued over their song “Somebody to Love.” Usher and Beiber won: the claims were dismissed with prejudice in an eleven page opinion granting the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

The plaintiff made several arguments claiming that Beiber’s song stemmed from the same lyrical content and theme as the original song they presented. However, the judge ruled that the songs were so intrinsically dissimilar that the extrinsic Because works are considered intrinsically similar if the intended audience could determine that the works are substantially similar, the judge reasoned that the audience is the general public, and that they would not find the songs similar enough to evoke infringement. Additionally, the judge ruled that, extrinsically, the mood, tone and subject matter of the songs are different from one another, therefore a jury would not likely conclude that the public would see them as similar. The lyrical content argument was not enough.

SO WHAT SHOULD I GLEAN FROM THIS? Copyright Infringement isn’t always about direct copying; claims can arise out of correlations through relationships and similarities. However, because similarity in art can be highly subjective, the Courts often weigh the perspective of the public when it comes to evaluating what is considered similar enough to be infringing. This ruling clearly illustrates that an idea alone isn’t protected, only the expression.

Read the judicial opinion here.