A copyright lawsuit regarding the blockbuster sequel to the original movie Top Gun has been filed by Paramount and the heirs of the author of a 1983 magazine story that the original Top Gun was based on. Both parties have filed a summary judgment motion, trading arguments over the copyrightability of certain aspects of Ehud Yonay’s article and Top Gun: Maverick director Joseph Kosinski’s inspirations for some parts of the movie alleged to infringe on the writer’s intellectual property.
The Yonay heirs, Shosh and Yuval, have pointed to scenes and plot devices in the sequel that were detailed in the story but did not appear in the original as evidence that filmmakers copied parts of the article. Paramount, on the other hand, maintains that any similarities between the material are a result of drawing from uncopyrightable facts, which were obtained by consulting with the Navy. Kosinski, in a declaration submitted to the court, says that he wrote the scene into the movie after he visited a bar on the base and “invoked the Club’s ‘rules,’ thereby requiring me to buy a round for everyone in the bar.” He denies reading Ehud Yonay’s story.
The Yonays sued Paramount last year, alleging that the studio didn’t credit the California Magazine story entitled “Top Guns” that the original movie was built on after they reclaimed the rights to the work. The Yonays argue that Paramount made the sequel without securing a new license once the rights to the article reverted back to them in January 2020. Paramount contends that it was within its rights because the movie draws on uncopyrightable facts and that the Yonays are essentially looking for an “effective monopoly” over stories about the U.S. Navy’s “Top Gun” program to prepare fighter pilots for combat.
Paramount argues that copyright law does not protect facts or ideas and it certainly does not allow an author to stake out an exclusive claim to a subject simply because he came first. The studio contends that any similarities between the movie and Yonay’s story are a result of overlapping facts in the works and that it turned to the Navy for consultations and accuracy on technical aspects of the movie instead of the article.
The Yonays counter that an evaluation of substantial similarity involves creative expression and the author’s selection and arrangement of nonfiction content. They point out that Paramount long considered Yonay’s work to be an expressive copyrightable ‘story’ until losing the rights, at which point it “flip-flopped and renounced its long-held legal position it benefited from for decades.”
Dismissal in copyright lawsuits typically turn on a comparison of the works’ plots, themes and characters, among various other factors. However, the 9th U.S. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has recently directed lower courts not to prematurely toss cases, as seen in a series of other reversals in copyright lawsuits overturning dismissals. U.S. District Judge Percy Anderson last year advanced the lawsuit, pointing to “enough alleged similarities” between the original story and Top Gun: Maverick to survive dismissal.
The Yonays argue that similarities that appear in the story and sequel but not in the original Top Gun buttress claims that filmmakers returned to the article for inspiration. They point to specific examples, such as the depiction of risky aerial maneuvers and the portrayal of pilots’ social lives, and similarities in dialogue, setting, and mood. They note that only the best of the best get invited back to Top Gun as instructors in the story, which is also a detail that appears only in the sequel, but not in Top Gun.
Paramount maintains that any overlap between the works is unactionable under copyright law, as they “are reported in the Article as factual.” The outcome of this copyright lawsuit will likely depend on the court’s evaluation of alleged similarities between the story and the sequel. The case presents an interesting challenge for First Amendment and intellectual property law, as it determines the extent to which the ideas and facts presented in nonfiction works can be protected under copyright law. Both parties have presented compelling arguments, and it remains to be seen how the court will rule.