No copyright infringement in ‘Top Gun’ sequel, Ninth Circuit rules
Carly Nairn
(CN) — Siding with a lower court, a Ninth Circuit panel on Friday found there was no viable claim for copyright infringement over a “Top Gun” sequel released by Paramount Pictures in 2022.
The dispute stems from a 1983 magazine article by journalist Ehud Yonay, on which the original film was based.
That article, entitled “Top Guns,” tells the story of a pilot going through intensive training at the United States Navy Fighter Weapons School.
Paramount paid Yonay, who died in 2012, an undisclosed sum to turn the article into the hit 1986 film “Top Gun,” also giving him a film credit. However, the studio made no such arrangement to produce its 2022 sequel “Top Gun: Maverick,” prompting Ehud’s wife and son Shosh and Yuval to sue for copyright infringement.
A lower court dismissed a copyright claim in April 2024, finding the sequel “did not share substantial amounts of the original expression of ‘Top Guns.’” Shosh and Yuval Yonay appealed.
Writing for the Ninth Circuit, U.S. Circuit Judge Eric Miller said the lower court had ruled properly in granting summary judgment to Paramount.
“The Yonays contend that there are similarities in each of the categories of elements described in our cases: plot, sequence of events, characters, dialogue, themes, mood, setting, and pace,” wrote Miller, a Donald Trump appointee. “We agree with the district court that the Yonays cannot show meaningful similarities in any of those categories.”
The original “Top Guns” magazine story discussed the history of culture of the Air Force’s “Top Gun” program.
The story centers on two lieutenants with the call signs “Yogi” and “Possum.” The 1986 film drew heavily on the story, with Tom Cruise playing fictional pilot Pete “Maverick” Mitchell.
In the 2022 sequel “Top Gun: Maverick,” Mitchell is ordered back to the Naval Air Station North Island to train a group of Top Gun graduates for a dangerous mission to destroy a uranium enrichment plant in enemy territory. Both the lower court and the Ninth Circuit ultimately determined that the latest film differed too much from the original article for the Yonays to assert a copyright claim.
“The Yonays identify similarities between the article and the film only by describing both works at such a high level of abstraction that the similarities do not involve protected expression,” Miller wrote. “Their claim of substantial similarity fails because what is protected is not similar, and what is similar is not protected.”
Miller emphasized that Yonay — rather than inventing the original “Top Guns” story — had drawn on actual facts, which are not copyrightable.
For that reason, Miller said the lower court also ruled correctly in excluding plaintiff expert Henry Bean.
Bean “fail[ed] to filter out the elements of the article and [Maverick] that are not protected by copyright law (i.e., facts), which renders his opinions unhelpful and inadmissible,” Miller wrote. Nonetheless, the judge described the article as an example of “New Journalism,” highlighting Yuval’s vivid imagery and distinct voice.
In a statement to Courthouse News, Paramount spokesperson Allison McLarty said the company was “pleased that the Ninth Circuit recognized that plaintiffs’ claims were completely without merit.”
Marc Toberoff, an attorney for the plaintiffs, told Courthouse News that “under the panel’s reasoning, the more vividly a journalist captures the truth, the less protection he receives.” He said they were still evaluating next options, “including seeking en banc review or certiorari.”
“That result punishes exactly the kind of original expression copyright was designed to reward,” Toberofff said. “This decision fundamentally misapplies the substantial similarity doctrine in ways that threaten creators across every medium.”
Also serving on the panel were U.S. Circuit Judges Andrew Hurwitz, a Barack Obama appointee, and Jennifer Sung, a Joe Biden appointee. The trio heard oral arguments in the case in June 2025.