Entertainment Law Resources
​
  • HOME
  • LAW PRACTICE
    • Mark Litwak
    • Glenn Litwak
    • Pete Wilke
  • ARTICLES & VIDEO CLIPS
    • Video & Audio Clips
  • STORE
  • RESOURCES
  • BLOG
  • CONTACT
  • FAQ
  • SITE MAP
  • CREATIVE ACCOUNTING REVISITED
  • CREATIVE ACCOUNTING REVISITED
  • New Page

Top Gun Copyright Lawsuit Dismissed

4/12/2024

0 Comments

 
A recent case raised the question of whether a sequel movie is always a derivative work of the original work. The sequel was Top Gun: Maverick which  featured Tom Cruise reprising his role as U.S. Navy test pilot Pete "Maverick" Mitchell. The film was wildly successful grossing $1.5 billion worldwide.
 
The original movie was based on a non-fiction magazine article written by Ehud Yonay about the experiences of F-14 pilots as they undergo training at the Navy’s Fighter Weapons School. It was published in California Magazine on April 21, 1983, and Paramount Pictures Corporation bought the motion picture adaptation rights to the article and released the first Top Gun movie in 1986. For the movie, Paramount created  fictional characters Pete (“Maverick”) Mitchell and Nick (“Goose”) Bradshaw.
 
In 2018 the writer’s heirs sent a copyright termination notice to Paramount reclaiming rights to the article as allowed under Copyright law. Under copyright law, authors (or, if the authors are not alive, their surviving spouses, children, or executors), can “terminate” copyright assignments they have previously made in certain circumstances and regain rights to their work after 35 years. Consequently, even if an author, signed an agreement transferring all rights in their work in perpetuity, the Copyright Act provides that the author can terminate that grant and demand that the rights revert. Essentially, the author gets  a second chance to make money from his work.
 
Without securing any rights to the original magazine article, Paramount produced and then  released a sequel to the original film, named “Top Gun: Maverick” and did not credit  writer Yonay for the source material. The heirs of Yonay filed a lawsuit alleging breach of contract and copyright infringement.
 
The Plaintiffs asserted  that the article and sequel movie were substantially similar because they had similar plots, sequences of events, pacing, themes, moods, dialogue, characters, and settings. Defendant contended  that these aspects of the sequel were not similar to the original movie or were based on  elements of the Works not protectable under Copyright law. Plaintiffs claimed  the sequel fictional  film was a derivative work based on the original non-fiction article.
 
U.S. District Judge Percy Anderson in Los Angeles has found that the sequel Top Gun: Maverick was not "substantially similar" to the magazine article that was the basis for the first Top Gun movie. The court found that copyright law does not protect factual elements or familiar plot elements such as pilots embarking on missions, being shot down or carousing at a bar. Likewise, the court found that  copyright law does not protect themes such as "the sheer love of flying."

Read the Case. CV 22-3846 PA (GJSx).
 

0 Comments

    Archives

    February 2025
    December 2024
    September 2024
    July 2024
    April 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    November 2022
    September 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    May 2021
    March 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    December 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    May 2018
    March 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    August 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    July 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    January 2014
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    February 2012
    December 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    April 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    February 2010
    December 2009
    November 2009
    October 2009
    September 2009
    July 2009
    June 2009
    January 2009

    Disclaimer: The information in this blog post (“post”) is provided for general informational purposes only and may not reflect the current law in your jurisdiction. No information contained in this post should be construed as legal advice from the individual author, nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. No reader of this post should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included in, or accessible through, this Post without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from a lawyer licensed in the recipient’s state, country or other appropriate licensing jurisdiction.
    For older posts, please visit The Litwak Blog.
    Join our Email Newsletter list
    Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon
    For Email Newsletters you can trust
Picture
Home
Law Practice
Store
Articles & Video Clips
Resources

Blog

Contact
FAQ
Site Map

LAW OFFICES OF
MARK LITWAK & ASSOCIATES

201 Santa Monica Blvd.
Suite 300
Santa Monica, California 90401
Phone: 310-859-9595
[email protected]


Follow us on
Join our Email Newsletter list
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon
For Email Newsletters you can trust
Copyright  2013-2025, Mark Litwak. All Rights Reserved.│ Legal Disclaimer │ Terms of Use & Copyright    │  Privacy Policy