Beyond Copyright: Understanding Idea Misappropriation Claims for Writers

While copyright law protects the expression of creative works, it explicitly excludes protection for underlying ideas and concepts. For writers, this creates a significant vulnerability when pitching concepts to producers, publishers, or other industry professionals. Understanding idea misappropriation claims—a distinct legal theory from copyright—can provide crucial protection for your creative concepts during the development process.

What is Idea Misappropriation?

Idea misappropriation occurs when someone uses another's idea without permission or compensation, typically after the idea was disclosed in a confidential or business relationship. Unlike copyright infringement, these claims don't require that the idea be fixed in a tangible medium. However, not all ideas qualify for protection—courts generally require that ideas be novel, concrete, and sufficiently developed beyond abstract concepts. Because the standards and remedies differ widely, recovery for the theft of an idea ultimately depends on state law, underscoring the importance of consulting local counsel with entertainment law experience.

Understanding the Required Relationship

Courts require a confidential or business relationship between the parties. This typically means:

• The recipient solicited the idea for potential business use
• There was an expectation of confidentiality (express or implied)
• The disclosure occurred in a professional context, not casual conversation

Protecting Your Ideas

To protect yourself against idea misappropriation, there must be a special relationship between you and the person receiving your pitch or reviewing your material. The landmark California case Desny v. Wilder (1956) established the framework for protecting ideas through implied contracts, but also warned writers about unsolicited submissions. As the court cautioned: "The idea man who blurts out his idea without having first made his bargain has no one but himself to blame for the loss of his bargaining power." 

1. Deal with Reputable Parties. Research the track record and business practices of individuals and companies before sharing ideas

2.  Create a Paper Trail. Maintain detailed records of including: dates,  attendees at all meetings, written summaries of what was discussed

3. Follow-Up Communications. After pitch meetings, send a follow-up email or note summarizing the discussion and confirming that the meeting was for the possible development of your project.
   

4. Document Your Idea: While copyright registration doesn't protect the underlying idea, documenting your expression through Copyright Office registration or Writers Guild registration establishes a timeline and demonstrates development.

5. Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs). In theory, the best way to protect an idea is to have the recipient sign an NDA before you share it. In practice, however, the major players—whether the “Big Five” New York publishers, Disney, or Amazon MGM Studios—will not sign NDAs. In Hollywood the studios rely instead on idea submission policies or boilerplate submission agreements, which typically state that unsolicited ideas become company property or may be used without any obligation to compensate the submitter.

Legal Theories in Idea Misappropriation

Legal protection varies significantly by state or jurisdication, and understanding these differences is crucial for determining where to pursue claims:

Contract Theory (California and other states): Courts may find implied contracts when ideas are submitted with expectation of payment if used. The idea must typically be novel and concrete, and there must be evidence the parties understood compensation was expected.

Property Theory (New York and other states): Some states treat sufficiently novel and concrete ideas as quasi-property, protectable regardless of contractual relationships. After establishing that the idea merits protection as property, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant used it without authorization.

In How to Avoid Reel Legal Problems, attorney James Sammataro observes that some idea submitters try to rely on “industry custom”—arguing that because entertainment companies often compensate for ideas, payment should be implied. He cautions, however, that this is at best a weak argument. Courts do not regard “industry custom” as a reliable basis for misappropriation or breach of implied contract claims, and if that is your only argument, “you’re likely to get the short end of the stick.” That said, if you clearly state when submitting your idea that you expect to be paid if it is used, and the recipient accepts the submission without objection but later exploits the idea, you may have given them enough rope to hang themselves. 

Conclusion

Copyright law provides scant protection for idea submitters, focusing on expression rather than underlying concepts. As Dorothy Parker famously observed, "the only 'ism' in Hollywood is plagiarism." Her wry remark reminds us that while borrowing and imitation may be part of the industry's DNA, they represent ethical lapses rather than legal infringements. Courts don't conflate plagiarism with copyright violation—the former is a question of professional ethics, the latter a matter of enforceable law.

The legal standards for proving idea misappropriation remain demanding, particularly the requirements for novelty, concrete development, and establishing the requisite confidential relationship. 

For writers, this emphasizes the importance of preventive measures—proper documentation, and careful relationship management—rather than relying on litigation as a primary protective strategy. While idea misappropriation claims provide some protection beyond copyright, they remain challenging and expensive to pursue. 

###

DISCLAIMER: This article provides general information and should not be construed as legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and specific circumstances. Consult with qualified legal counsel for advice regarding specific situations.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR. Lloyd J. Jassin is a New York publishing and entertainment attorney with 30+ years of experience representing bestselling and first-time authors (and their heirs), literary agencies, and publishers. A former publicity director at Prentice Hall Press (a division of Simon & Schuster), he combines legal expertise with deep industry knowledge.

Mr. Jassin specializes in book contract review and negotiation, manuscript clearance for libel and privacy law compliance, book-to-film/TV deals, brand protection, and complex rights reversions for authors, composers, and literary estates. He co-authored The Copyright Permission and Libel Handbook (John Wiley & Sons) and has been quoted in The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Forbes, and Time Magazine.

An active member of the publishing community, he has spoken at BookExpo and Publishers Weekly conferences, served as an adjunct professor at NYU Center for Publishing, and previously chaired the Center for Independent Publishing executive committee. He currently serves on the Beacon Press advisory board.

Licensed to practice law in New York and New Jersey, Mr. Jassin counsels clients on all aspects of content creation, copyright, trademark, defamation and privacy law in the evolving entertainment landscape.

Contact: Jassin@copylaw.com | (212) 354-4442 | 104 West 40th Street, New York, N.Y. 10018. With offices in Morristown, N.J. 

Related Articles

Can You Copyright Historical Facts? A Writer's Guide to Historical Fiction Copyright

(c) 2025. Lloyd J. Jassin. 

Can You Copyright Historical Facts? A Writer's Guide to Historical Fiction Copyright

Authors and screenwriters working in historical fiction have the opportunity to transform real events into powerful creative works. While historical facts themselves cannot be copyrighted, the way those facts are creatively expressed—through plot, character development, and narrative choices—can be. This article delves into the complexities of copyright law through a landmark case study: a lawsuit involving Steven Spielberg's historical drama Amistad and Barbara Chase-Riboud's novel Echo of Lions. By examining this case, writers can better understand how courts distinguish between protected creative elements and unprotected historical facts, empowering them to draw inspiration from the historical record while respecting legal boundaries when adapting true stories for page or screen.

Historical Fiction and Copyright: Who Owns the Past?

The headline in The Washington Post read: "Judge Refuses to Block Release of Spielberg's Amistad. Plagiarism Suit Against Filmmaker to Proceed." Echoing Dorothy Parker's bon mot that "The only ism Hollywood believes in is plagiarism," bestselling African American novelist, poet, and sculptor Barbara Chase-Riboud claimed that Spielberg's film Amistad infringed the copyright to her novel about a real-life mutiny aboard a slave ship off the coast of Cuba in 1839. Specifically, Chase-Riboud alleged that the DreamWorks' script impermissibly copied "themes, dialogue, characters, relationships, plots, scenes and fictional inventions" from her 1989 historical novel, Echo of Lions.

Although Spielberg's production company had flown Chase-Riboud to Los Angeles in 1988 to discuss optioning rights to her novel, and there existed ample evidence of overlap between ideas and characters in the novel and the film, the court recognized that historical facts and basic character types are not protectable. Since the only common elements between the book and movie related to historical facts and broadly drawn characters, the court determined it was unlikely Ms. Chase-Riboud's claim would succeed at trial. Consequently, her motion for summary judgment -- which would have assured a quick resolution of her claim -- was denied.

Because copyright does not protect ideas and facts or material traceable to timeless themes, copying alone is not enough to prove copyright infringement. To prove copyright infringement, a copyright owner must prove that the infringer copied protected material. When courts are asked to determine whether infringement has occurred, they must disregard non-copyrightable elements (such as ideas and historical facts) and compare the copyrightable elements in the works. Unfortunately, as this case illustrates, there is no simple test to distinguish unprotected ideas from protected expression.

"Because copyright does not protect ideas, facts, procedures, concepts, principles, or discoveries described or embodied in works, copying alone doesn’t constitute copyright infringement."

Understanding Substantial Similarity in Copyright Law

Under copyright law, only an author's particular expression of an idea, not the idea itself, is protectable. Prior copyright infringement lawsuits against writers have held that basic plots, stock settings, and stereotypical characters (e.g., prostitutes with hearts of gold, sympathetic mob bosses, corrupt cops, Nazi zombies) are not protected by copyright. These literary devices -- which are part of every novelist's and screenwriter's toolkit -- belong to a common pool of literary techniques analogous to unprotected ideas.

In a copyright infringement case, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant actually copied its work and that the copying was "substantial" enough to constitute an unlawful taking of the plaintiff's work. Unlawful copying exists when there is not only substantial similarity between two works but also substantial similarity between protectable elements.

In the Amistad case, since DreamWorks did not dispute having access to Chase-Riboud's book, the only issue for the court to decide was whether substantial similarity of expression between the two works existed.

While copyright is important, a work may be protected under other legal theories. For example, under the law of idea misappropriation—which varies from state to state—if you submit a story idea to someone and the idea is used, provided there was a prior understanding you would be paid for your idea, an enforceable contract may exist. 

Walking the Line Between Inspiration and Infringement

In finding DreamWorks did not violate Chase-Riboud's copyright, the court looked at the "total concept and feel" of the two works -- the standard test for assessing the substantial similarity of expressive elements between a film and a book. The "total concept and feel" analysis looks at similarities of plot, mood, text, setting, sequence of events, and characterizations from the vantage point of the average lay observer.

Because the plot, setting, and general sequence of events of the two works were -- in the court's opinion -- dictated by the historical record, the court determined that the plaintiff could not sustain her burden of proof on these factors alone. As a general rule, historical works, including historical novels that track real events closely, receive less protection than fictional works or works loosely based on real events. Moreover, the court noted that the mood and pace of Echo of Lions, which contains a poignant love story, was much different from Amistad, whose mood and flow were dictated solely by historical events.

Since Chase-Riboud also relied on certain specific examples of substantial similarity to support her claim, those examples, too, were analyzed by the court. But none of those basic resemblance, or common themes, were enough. Interestingly, neither the court nor Chase-Riboud cited specific instances of dialogue appropriation.

Looking at certain specific claims, Chase-Riboud claimed that a fictional Black abolitionist named Henry Braithwaite overlapped with Amistad's Theodore Joadson. While both fictional characters are depicted as wealthy, erudite  Black abolitionists residing in New Haven, according to the court, they share little else in common. For example, Amistad's Joadson was a runaway slave, whereas Braithwaite came from a land-owning family that arrived in America in the mid-1600s. Unlike Chase-Riboud's character, Joadson had a critical role in the African's defense, including interviewing attorneys and urging John Quincy Adams to represent them at trial.

While noting that well-developed characters—especially visually depicted ones—are eligible for copyright protection, the court held that since the idea of a Black abolitionist appearing in both works was predictable and only superficial similarities existed between Braithwaite and Joadson, no reasonable juror would find the characters substantially similar from a copyright point of view.

Similarly, Chase-Riboud claimed that DreamWorks stole certain ideas and plot devices -- not supported by the historical record -- relating to a historical character named Cinque, who was featured in both works. However, the court held that Chase-Riboud's portrait of the slave Cinque, which included a relationship with John Quincy Adams, was not the stuff that infringements are made of. While "both" Cinque's shared certain similarities, the court held that Chase-Riboud's character was not sufficiently distinctive to enjoy copyright protection. Moreover, since both works "expressed" Cinque differently, the court held that there was no substantial similarity. Moving beyond the characterizations, the court found that other specific claims of similarity, including common endings tied to the Civil War and the destruction of a slave colony with the rendering of the Supreme Court decision freeing the slaves, were sufficiently different to defeat Chase-Riboud's claims.

Case Settled

Hinting at a financial settlement, The Los Angeles Times reported on February 10, 1998, that Chase-Riboud had released the following statement: “After my lawyers had a chance to review DreamWorks’ files and other documents and evidence, my lawyers and I concluded that neither Steven Spielberg nor DreamWorks did anything improper, and I instructed my lawyers to conclude this matter in a timely and amicable fashion. I think Amistad is a splendid piece of work, and I applaud Mr. Spielberg for having the courage to make it.”

The Takeaway

Not all similarities amount to copyright infringement. Regarding copyright protection for historical works, an author's exclusive rights are confined to how their ideas and facts are selected, organized, and presented. In determining similar cases, courts will continue to evaluate plots, moods, scenes, sequences, events, and characterizations to determine whether the defendant has captured the "total look and feel" of the plaintiff's work. As seen in the Amistad case, courts will also review differences, as well as similarities, between the two works when making infringement decisions.

If you are a writer and have questions about copyright infringement, fair use, how to protect a book title or defamation law, contact me for a consultation. 

DISCLAIMER: This article provides general information and should not be construed as legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and specific circumstances. Consult with qualified legal counsel for advice regarding specific situations.

###

ABOUT THE AUTHOR. Lloyd Jassin is a New York publishing and literary rights attorney with 30+ years of experience representing bestselling and first-time authors (and their heirs), literary agencies, and publishers. A former publicity director at Prentice Hall Press (a division of Simon & Schuster), he combines legal expertise with deep industry knowledge.

Mr. Jassin specializes in book contract review and negotiation, manuscript clearance for libel and privacy law compliance, book-to-film/TV deals, brand protection, and complex rights reversions for authors, composers, and literary estates. He co-authored The Copyright Permission and Libel Handbook (John Wiley & Sons) and has been quoted in The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Publishers Weekly, and Time Magazine.

An active member of the publishing community, he has spoken at BookExpo and Publishers Weekly industry conferences, served as an adjunct professor at NYU Center for Publishing, and previously chaired the Center for Independent Publishing executive committee. He currently serves on the Beacon Press advisory board.

Licensed to practice law in New York and New Jersey, Mr. Jassin counsels clients on all aspects of content creation, copyright, trademark, defamation, and right of publicity and privacy law in the evolving entertainment landscape.

Contact: Jassin@copylaw.com | (212) 354-4442 | 104 West 40th Street, New York, N.Y. 10018. With offices in Morristown, N.J. 

(c) 1999 - 2025. Lloyd J. Jassin.  An earlier version of this article was first published in Creative Screenwriting Magazine.

AI vs. Copyright: How Publishers and Author Brands Will Survive the Generative AI Revolution

Generative artificial intelligence is fundamentally challenging copyright law and traditional publishing models. As AI systems create vast amounts of content without human authorship, author and publishers face unprecedented questions about creativity, originality, and intellectual property protection in the digital age.

To understand this disruption, you must first understand the policy behind copyright law. The premise is that without copyright protection, authors would have no incentive to create new works. However, algorithms and artificial intelligence don't require incentives in the same way humans do. This creates a fundamental tension that threatens the traditional copyright framework.

Why Author and Publisher Brands Matter More Than Ever

As publisher Alfred A. Knopf recognized in 1957, "a publisher's imprint means something and that if readers paid more attention to the publisher of the books they buy, their chances of being disappointed would be infinitely less." This insight, which appears in Knopf's The Borzoi Credo, a publishing manifesto first published in The Atlantic Monthly, becomes even more critical in the AI era, where content provenance and brand authenticity serve as essential quality filters for consumers navigating an ocean of machine-generated content.

Unlike book publishers, who generate royalties for human authors, internet platforms prioritize data-driven and machine-learning engagement for advertising revenue. They harness user interactions and behavior to sustain their financial models. As a result, these AI systems can generate vast amounts of content, from good enough to outright toxic, blending fact and fiction without any regard for copyright protections or permissions. For the time being, this glut of AI-generated media poses complex questions about information quality and attribution as well as the boundaries of creativity and originality.

As the volume of AI-generated media increases, the provenance of information will become more important, creating market incentives and consumer demand for publishers and creators who can demonstrate authenticity and high quality.

The Publisher Advantage in an AI World

While addressing the complexities of regulating AI-generated content remains an open question, the established community of publishers has an important advantage in addressing consumer comfort levels as provenance plays a central role in fostering trust and reliability in information. Publishers (with a capital "P"), through selectivity in what they acquire, careful editing, collaboration amongst sales and marketing, publicity, and the payment of royalties, offer a baseline of trust in the data they publish.

Amidst growing uncertainty in consumer trust towards AI, the presence of author brands, publisher imprints, and robust metadata becomes pivotal. These elements act as guiding beacons for consumers, helping them navigate the overwhelming volume of data and identify high-quality works amidst the vast sea of information.

Without trademarks, John Oathout, author of  Trademarks, wrote, "consumers would have no basis for selection or rejection, or any assurance that a particular product is the product they are seeking."

Trademark Protection as a Strategic Response

Unlike copyright law, trademark law can be used to stop the unauthorized use of a bestselling author's name, a series title, symbols, and markings that the public associates with a particular publisher or other source. In this respect, trademark law is an effective cudgel against those who pass off their wares as endorsed by or coming from an established creator, publisher, or producer.

Trademark registration of an author's name, a series title, or a publisher's imprint also opens doors to Amazon's Brand Registry, empowering authors and publishers with takedown tools. The Brand Registry is a quick and cost-effective alternative to litigating unfair competition and right of publicity claims. The hitch is that the name or mark must be registered, which requires showing consumers perceive the name to be a badge for literary services.

The Future of Publishing in the AI Era

While the publishing industry understandably has antagonism towards large language models, the industry will no doubt take an active part in shaping the future of AI, whether through legislation, licensing their books to train AI, creating bespoke AI models with their own curated datasets, and trumpeting the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval value of their author and publisher brands.

As Norbert Wiener warned in The Human Use of Human Beings (1950), technology left unchecked can reduce people to little more than cogs in a machine. Today, generative AI is undermining the incentives given to authors by copyright law while simultaneously fulfilling copyright's constitutional purpose of promoting "the Progress of Science and useful Arts." This tension will work itself out over time, but we need human editors and publishers for transparency, accountability, and quality control purposes. In an age of generative AI that can masterfully simulate the verisimilitude of human authorship, authentic human curation and editorial judgment become more valuable, not less—making publisher brands and trademark protection essential competitive advantages.

About the Author

Lloyd J. Jassin is a New York publishing and entertainment attorney with 30+ years of experience representing bestselling and first-time authors, literary agencies, and publishers. He specializes in book contract review and negotiation, manuscript clearance for libel and privacy law compliance, book-to-film/TV deals, brand protection, and complex rights reversions for authors, composers, and literary estates. He co-authored The Copyright Permission and Libel Handbook (John Wiley & Sons) and has been quoted in The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Forbes, and Time Magazine.

Licensed to practice in New York and New Jersey, Mr. Jassin counsels clients on all aspects of content creation, copyright, trademark, and privacy law in the evolving entertainment landscape.

Contact: Jassin@copylaw.com | (212) 354-4442 | 104 West 40th Street, New York, NY 10018. With offices in Morristown, NJ.

My Article in Publishers Weekly - "Generative AI vs Copyright"

Pleased to have Publishers Weekly publish my article on the impact Generative AI will have on the publishing industry. 

When it comes to text, Generative AI (GAI) is an artful plagiarist. It knows how to dance around copyright. The predictive model emulates, it doesn’t copy. The upshot is copyright, which is basically a nuanced law of reprinting bans, is ill-equipped to deal with GAI. The question is can it be modified to address the threat to human authors.  

Click here to read my article.  

                                                                       

 

 

 

 

How Authors Can Fight Fake AI-Generated Books on Amazon

In the rapidly evolving publishing landscape, authors and publishers face a growing challenge: the proliferation of counterfeit AI-generated books on platforms like Amazon. This guide aims to help you understand your intellectual property rights and utilize available tools to protect your brand.

The Importance of Brand Protection

Your author brand represents years of hard work and the quality of your literary output. Amid a deluge of inaccurately labeled and untrustworthy AI-generated content, safeguarding your trademark or brand--whether it's a series name or a pseudonym--has become essential to maintaining a successful career.

Copyright vs. Trademark: Using the Right Tool

Like Madame Curie and Mariah Carey, copyrights and trademarks are sometimes mistaken for each other. The irony is that the core purpose of trademark law is to prevent consumer confusion.

While copyrights and trademarks protect different interests, brand owners can often use both to safeguard their rights. Understanding the distinction between copyright and trademark protection is key.

• Trademarks protect brand recognition and reputation. They prevent others from copying source identifiers—such as names, slogans, series titles, distinctive fonts, logos and publisher imprints—that help consumers distinguish the source of one product or business from another.

• Copyrights protects the creative expression in original works of authorship—including the text of a book, photographs, cover designs, illustrations, maps and typeface designs—but not the underlying ideas, facts, or brief phrases.

Legal Protections for Authors and Publishers 

Trademark law serves two primary purposes: (a) protecting consumers from being misled about the source or sponsorship of products and services and (b) safeguarding the investments authors and publishers make in building their brands.

Federal Trademark Registration Requirements

The key benefits of a federally registered trademark are the right to sue in federal court and access to Amazon’s Brand Registry. Registering a series title, pseudonym, or well-known author's name with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) allows you access to Amazon's Brand Registry—a cost-effective alternative to litigation that enables a trademark registrant to remove unauthorized content from the Amazon platform.

Important caveat: Not all author names qualify for federal trademark protection. To register a name mark, you must demonstrate that consumers associate your name with literary services and purchase books based on your name recognition, regardless of subject matter or series. This typically requires evidence of substantial sales, marketing efforts, and broad consumer recognition. Many successful trademark registrations involve authors whose brands extend beyond books to merchandise, film/TV adaptations, podcasts, or speaking engagements.

Using Amazon's Brand Registry

If you have a federally registered trademark, you can enroll in Amazon's Brand Registry. The program gives brand owners powerful tools to monitor Amazon for infringing listings—such as unauthorized use of series titles or products falsely claiming affiliation with your brand. When you spot a violation, you can file a takedown request directly through the Registry. Amazon reviews the claim and, if it confirms a violation, removes the offending listings. 

Copyright vs. Trademark Violations

If your issue with Amazon (or other platforms) involves someone using your content without permission, that's a potential copyright violation. Copyright owners can use the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to have infringing online content removed without resorting to litigation. In such cases, use Amazon's "Report the Infringement" takedown tool.

However, internet service providers have a legal obligation to restore content if the alleged infringer sends a counter-notice claiming the copyright owner is wrong. Unless the copyright owner files a lawsuit within 10-14 days of receiving the counter-notice, the content goes back up. This process can become a frustrating cycle of takedowns and restorations..

Unfair Competition Law

Unfair competition law, governed by state and federal laws, protects businesses and consumers from deceptive or unethical commercial practices. Broader in scope than trademark law, it applies to a wide range of business activities, not just the deceptive use of marks. It can be used to combat various forms of misrepresentation, including false claims about the origin or endorsement of creative works or products, including author impersonation. Importantly, unfair competition law protects both registered and unregistered marks. 

Even without a registered trademark, individuals and businesses can invoke unfair competition laws against bad actors who consumers into falsely believing their products (including books, blogs, podcasts, and businesses) or services have been approved or endorsed by the brand owners.  For example, if a blogger uses a name or logo that’s confusingly similar to yours, you may be able to stop them under unfair competition laws.

While these default protections for common law marks exist, owning a federally registered trademark provides significantly stronger nationwide rights and makes enforcement faster, easier, and less costly. 

Federal trademark registration also unlocks important tools unavailable to unregistered mark owners—most notably, Amazon's Brand Registry. Without a registered trademark, you cannot enroll in this program, which allows brand owners to monitor third-party sellers, remove infringing listings, and protect their reputation on the world's largest retail platform.

Real-World Example: Jane Friedman's Case

Publishing strategist Jane Friedman brought national attention to the problem when she discovered multiple books being sold on Amazon under her own name that she did not write--constituting false designation of origin (a form of unfair competition) under both state and federal law.

Jane’s brand is closely associated with the business of being a writer. Fortunately, she was able to use her online platform and influence—rather than litigation—to persuade Amazon to remove the books. But not all authors have this option available to them. 

Practical Strategies for Authors

1. Monitor Regularly. Set up Google Alerts and periodically search Amazon unauthorized use of your name, series titles, or brand.
2. Act Quickly. A cease-and-desist letter is essentially a threat of litigation—often an effective step before filing suit. Its tone should be calibrated to the facts, ranging from firm and aggressive to more conciliatory, depending on the circumstances and desired outcome. 
3. Consider Trademark Registration.  A registered trademark provides stronger brand protection and access to Amazon's Brand Registry, making enforcement significantly more effective than cease-and-desist letters alone.
4. Consider Copyright Registration. Registering your works strengthens your enforcemernt options in court. 
5. Use the Right Reporting Tool. Unlikes Amazon's Brand Registry, you do not need a copyright  registration to send a DMCA takedown notice. Platforms (like Amazon, YouTube, or Facebook) generally process takedown requess without asking for proof of copyright registration.

Important copyright limtiation.  

• To sue in U.S. federal court for copyright infringement, you do need a copyright registration (or at least a filed application that the Copyright Office has acted on).

• Registration also unlocks important benefits like statutory damages and attorneys’ fees, which are not available otherwise.

Conclusion

By understanding both the tools and their practical limitations, authors and publishers can develop realistic strategies to protect their work and reputation in the evolving digital publishing landscape while avoiding expensive legal battles with uncertain outcomes. 

###

DISCLAIMER: The content of this article is intended to address general legal issues and does not constitute specific legal advice for any individual situation. It is strongly recommended to seek competant legal counsel before relying on any information contained herein.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR  

Lloyd Jassin is a New York publishing and entertainment attorney with 30+ years of experience representing bestselling and first-time authors (and heirs), literary agencies, and publishers. He specializes in book contract review and negotiation, manuscript clearance for libel and privacy law compliance, book-to-film/TV deals, brand protection, and complex rights reversions for authors, composers, and literary estates.

He co-authored The Copyright Permission and Libel Handbook: A Step-by-Step Guide for Writers, Editors and Publishers and has been widely quoted in The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Publishers Weekly and other national publications. Before becoming an attorney, he served as Director of Publicity for a division of Simon & Schuster.

An active member of the publishing community, he has spoken at BookExpo and Publishers Weekly industry conferences, served as an adjunct professor at NYU Center for Publishing, and previously chaired the Center for Independent Publishing executive committee. He currently serves on the Beacon Press advisory board.

His entrepreneurial endeavors includes ownership of East St. Louis Music, Inc.-- a music publishing company featuring the works of Miles Davis.  

Licensed to practice in New York and New Jersey, Mr. Jassin counsels clients on all aspects of content creation, copyright, trademark, and privacy law in the evolving entertainment landscape.

Contact: jassin@copylaw.com | (212) 354-4442 | 104 West 40th Street, FL 5, New York, NY 10018. With offices in Madison, N.J. 

© 2024-2025 Lloyd Jassin