In cases of infringement of literary and artistic works, the courts usually examine the nature of the similarities between the plaintiff's and the defendant's works to determine whether what has been copied is an unprotected "idea" or a protected "expression". This separation between idea and expression in the protection of works represents the principle of idea-expression dichotomy, which is accepted as the basis of protection in all systems of literary and artistic creations. Based on this principle, the works are protected in an expressive form and the idea alone is not protected. But the common understanding of the idea under the title of what exists in the human mind and has not been expressed externally, in practice excludes from protection ideas that are so innovative and organized that it can be said to be the result of the explorations of a unique mind. The present study tries to give the judges an evolved standard in sync with the needs of future literary and artistic development in order to distinguish what is allowed for copying, by applying the analytical-descriptive method in reconsidering the idea-expression dichotomy, and concludes that to consider the idea absolutely as part of the public domain is rejected considering its harmful results and certain types of ideas should be protected.