If I couldn't be a copyright lawyer, I would want to be a trade dress lawyer. There are some conceptual similarities, especially in figuring out the line between ideas and protectibilty, as well as functionality defenses.
There are cases is which both trade dress and copyright claims are made. Sometimes plaintiffs lose on the copyright claim because the claim is deemed to be for a general style and not particularized expression, but they then win on the trade dress claim for essentially the same reason: a recognizable, nonfunctional style may well be protected. But sometimes plaintiffs lose on both claims, and that's largely what happened on December 1st in Walker & Zanger, Inc. v. Paragaon Industries, Inc., 2006 WL 3490975 (N.D. Cal.)(Vaughan Walker)(Thanks to C.E. Petit for bringing the case to my attention). The court granted summary judgment to defendant on the trade dress claims (and a false advertising one), and partial summary judgment on the copyright claims, leaving a few designs for further exploration.
Plaintiff was a producer of what was described as "high quality stone and ceramic decorative tiles." (Here is a link to its website). Plaintiff claimed that there was an overriding design theme that included "classical design, colors and glazes that evoke the look of 'Old World handiwork.'" One line, deftly called Avignon, "is intended to capture a variety of French-inspired designs, specifically invoking the 'look and feel' of French architecture and art 'over a large span of time,'" quite an accomplishment indeed. Defendant was believed to be an evil pirate. (Here is a link to its website). In a quite thorough review of the case law and facts, Judge Walker held plaintiff's designs to be generic, albeit nonfunctional (some consolation!).
On the copyright side, plaintiff had registrations and so relied on their prima facie status. Defendant was, however, held to have rebutted that status through expert testimony demonstrating a considerable body of similar pre-existing works by third parties. Of course, there might be non-trivial variations sufficient to support derivative copyrights, and it is here that some designs made the summary judgment cut while others didn't, with the warning that those that stayed in would be accorded at best a thin copyright.
A very solid opinion.