The paper specifies the issues of the balance between the form and content of a work of art, as well as attribution of certain system elements of its structure to protected and unprotected elements. It is noted that the existing doctrinal discussion regarding Fichte’s idea about protected form and unprotected content of the work does not lose its relevance. The author highlights that in modern literature this idea has been repeatedly revised as not meeting the purpose of determining the circle of protected elements. Some researchers point to the use of philosophical, philological or ordinary concepts of the form and content of the work rather than legal ones as a weak point of this doctrine. The author justifies the doctrine of protected form and unprotected content, presents criticism of attempts to revise it, proves that the weak point of this theory involves invalidity of the critics’ arguments that the use of philosophical categories and concepts by the proponents of the theory of unprotected content and protected form, as well as philological and art terms and categories. It is concluded that the doctrinal system of protected and unprotected elements of the work requires clarification in relation to their individual types. The author suggests the idea of distinguishing non-trivial plots as elements of the internal form of the work which together with the characters and the title form a single system of artistic images allowing us to separate creative works from reproductive results of intellectual activity. The author proposes criteria for legal protection of the name and character of the work depending on the ability to cause in the public association with the work itself.