By: Fredrick Betzold
It’s not hard to imagine the uphill battle a small artist faces in a copyright infringement action against the likes of Paramount and Taylor Sheridan. But is it really, as the plaintiff’s attorney in this case suggests, “a classic David-versus-Goliath situation” in the legal sense?[1] Do courts provide such plaintiffs with a fair opportunity to have their claims heard?
Television writer Lauren J. Salkin filed the action Friday, August 21, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.[2] She claims that she submitted materials for a new show, Sovereign Nation, to Sheridan’s management company, Elevate Entertainment.[3]
As its title suggests, the series would revolve around “tribal governance, casino-driven economic power, and a modern war over land and development.”[4] Salkin states that Elevate responded with a message that Sheridan was “unavailable for TV projects.”[5]
According to the complaint, Yellowstone was greenlit months later.[6] The hugely successful show premiered on Paramount in June of 2018 and laid the foundation for Sheridan’s TV empire.[7] It ran for five seasons and spawned four spin-offs, with more in development. Last year, NBC signed Sheridan to a five-year deal reportedly worth approximately $1 billion.[8]
Salkin goes on to allege that Yellowstone made “specific expressive choices” taken directly from Sovereign Nation, including “a tribal casino functioning as the institutional center of political and developmental power; a signature confrontation staged in the tribal chairman’s casino office over expansion beyond reservation boundaries; the use of trust land, the absence of zoning restrictions and a 99-year lease structure as the concrete mechanism for that expansion…” in addition to others.[9]
Copyright claims like these are not uncommon. In 2025, a jury found in favor of Apple Inc. in a copyright battle over M. Night Shyamalan’s Servant.[10] Francesca Gregorini made allegations similar to Salkin’s, claiming that Servant infringed the copyright of her independent film released a few years prior.[11] Like Salkin, Gregorini alleged that the hit show’s plot was substantially similar to her film’s.[12] Similarities in plot, however, are only part of the three-part legal test courts typically use.
To prove copyright infringement, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing (1) ownership, (2) copying, and (3) unlawful appropriation.[13] The plaintiff must not only present the narrative similarities but also prove that they own the narrative itself and that the defendant had a “reasonable possibility” of seeing the plaintiff’s protected work.[14]
Although Gregorini ultimately lost the case, the Court took her claims seriously by denying Apple’s motion for summary judgment.[15] The copyright infringement test can actually play in the plaintiff’s favor when it comes to getting the case in front of a jury, since the elements tend to include issues of fact such as substantial similarity. And for a plaintiff who doesn’t have the money and prestige of the opposing party, getting in front of a jury is often ideal.
The action against Sheridan is still in its early stages, so it’s hard to analyze whether Salkin has sufficient evidence to meet her burden. But if there is truth in the allegations that Sheridan’s reps had Salkin’s show materials in their possession, and debatable similarities exist between the shows’ plots, it’s not hard to picture such a case making it past pre-trial motions.
[1] Hilary Lewis, Taylor Sheridan Accused of Stealing ‘Yellowstone’ Idea from TV Writer’s Pitch, Hollywood Rep. (Aug. 22, 2026, at 20:30 MT), https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ [https://perma.cc/4QGQ-4ZXM].
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Tom Murray, Yellowstone creator Taylor Sheridan accused of stealing writer’s idea in copyright lawsuit, Independent (Aug. 23, 2026, at 23:10 EDT), https://www.the-independent.com/ [https://perma.cc/6PYK-YDVP].
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] Mike Fleming Jr, How The Battle for ‘Yellowstone’s Taylor Sheridan Was Won, And Lost, Deadline (Oct. 27, 2025, at 15:54 MT), https://deadline.com/ [https://perma.cc/6ST5-EC5K].
[9] Lewis, supra note 1.
[10] J. Kim Murphy & Gene Maddaus, M. Night Shyamalan Cleared of Copyright Charges in ‘Servant’ Trial, Jury Rules, Variety (Jan. 24, 2025, at 18:29 PT),https://variety.com/ [https://perma.cc/N95M-CUS4].
[11] Id.
[12] Id.
[13] Gregorini v. Apple Inc., No. 2:20-cv-00406-SSS-JC, 2024 WL 5264949, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2024).
[14] Id. at *3–4.
[15] Id. at *1.
