Speaking broadly about the American versions of the laws (mostly made consistent throughout the world through international trade agreements such as the Berne Convention, TRIPS or the WCT):>Copyright
Copyrights are for creative works; nothing to do with innovation. Something can be creative without being original. Copyright is automatic upon authorship of the work, and for an individual lasts their lifespan + seventy years or in the case of a corporation/business lasts for 95 years.>Patents
Patents are for technical innovations, nothing for creative works. A person or group has to manually apply for them from the patent office. Generally, they last for a span of 20 years.>Trademarks
Trademarks are "marks", being words, images, phrases that indicate the source of a product or service. They can be indefinitely renewed, provided their source still exists and willingly renews them.
You can argue their similarities. I think patents are totally cringe, and trademarks, while having some issues, are mostly fine. But the phrase "intellectual property" is the greatest poison I've ever witnessed surronding discussing of these disparate laws. They all have different functions and histories, and to equate them together and to consider them the same as the economic concept of "property" is a total sham, given that their government-granted monopolies.
If you care about these sorts of issues, I think it's better to inspect the language that you're using and what meaning they're conveying. There's no such thing as "intellectual property" written into law - it is an umbrella term meant to capture these distinct laws and to confusingly merge them into one, with bias that aids those who benefit off of their misuse.
In particular, this is a thread about copyright, and I'd say it's one of the most egregious. I could go rant on how dangerous it's become since its inception, but I've just about hit the character limit on this post.