https://finance.yahoo.com/news...p-gun-151829949.html

Scroll back up to restore default view.
Reuters
'Top Gun' heirs sue Paramount over 'Top Gun: Maverick'
Jonathan Stempel
Mon, June 6, 2022, 8:18 AM·2 min read
By Jonathan Stempel

(Reuters) -The family of the author whose article inspired the 1986 Tom Cruise movie "Top Gun" on Monday sued Paramount Pictures for copyright infringement over this year's blockbuster sequel "Top Gun: Maverick."

According to a complaint filed in Los Angeles federal court, the Paramount Global unit failed to reacquire the rights to Ehud Yonay's 1983 article "Top Guns" from the family before releasing the "derivative" sequel.

The lawsuit by Shosh Yonay and Yuval Yonay, who live in Israel and are respectively Ehud's widow and son, seeks unspecified damages, including profits from "Top Gun: Maverick," and to block distribution of the movie or further sequels.

Paramount said in a statement: "These claims are without merit, and we will defend ourselves vigorously."

"Top Gun: Maverick" is this year's biggest box office hit, generating $291 million in North America and $548.6 million globally in its first 10 days of release.

The high-flying action film directed by Joseph Kosinski has received strong reviews, and has Cruise reprising his role as U.S. Navy test pilot Pete "Maverick" Mitchell.

It is already Cruise's highest-grossing film domestically, surpassing 2005's "War of the Worlds."

According to Monday's lawsuit, Paramount obtained exclusive movie rights to "Top Guns," published in the May 1983 issue of California magazine, before making the 1986 original, and even gave credit.

But the Yonays said Paramount deliberately ignored how the copyright reverted to them in January 2020, "thumbing its nose" at federal copyright law.

The Yonays said they sent Paramount a cease-and-desist letter on May 11, and that in response Paramount denied that the sequel derived from the 1983 article.

They said Paramount also argued that the sequel was "sufficiently completed" by the time the copyright reverted, in a "disingenuous attempt" to qualify for an exception to their claim. The Yonays said the sequel was completed in May 2021.

Lawyers for the Yonays did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Reached by phone, a woman who identified herself as Shosh Yonay and said her son was Yuval declined to comment.

This could be fun to watch. It is, of course, impossible to say who is right at this point. Just for starters, we haven't seen the agreement at the heart of this dispute.

Of course, that won't stop a lot of people from having an opinion.

Ugh

Looking for a payout now that this may be one of the biggest grossing movies ever?

People suck

The movie was announced over 8-years ago, filming started in 2018, it was supposed to have been released to theaters in 2019 but delayed for 2+ years. Now that this movie is breaking records, surprise! There's a lawsuit over copyrights. Think a entertainment lawyer got into the ear of the family?

Weird. How do you base a fictional movie on an article? I'm sure if I read the article I might be able to figure it out but I don't care to. If Paramount had rights that expired and they didn't do anything to mitigate the situation before the release date, they deserve everything they get now. The murderers of Star Trek deserve it.

For fuksakes. If it makes it to court, I could just see all the expert witnesses being called to the stand. Mr. Attorney “Mr. Jones, are you a graduate of the Navy Flight School?” Jones: “Yes sir”. Mr. Attorney “What do Navy and Marine personnel refer the flight school as “Top Gun”. Judge “Case dismissed” GTFO!

Could just be hoping for some "shut up and go away" money, banking on the fact that companies with big pockets (like movie studios) will sometimes offer 5+ figures to drop a suit because it's cheaper and easier than actually fighting it.

quote:

If it makes it to court, I could just see all the expert witnesses being called to the stand. Mr. Attorney “Mr. Jones, are you a graduate of the Navy Flight School?” Jones: “Yes sir”. Mr. Attorney “What do Navy and Marine personnel refer the flight school as “Top Gun”. Judge “Case dismissed” GTFO!

Until the follow up by the plaintiffs asking why the franchise purchased the rights the first time and not today. Clearly they felt the need (not for speed, but for copyright licensing) back in the 80's.

I'm no longer shocked by things I see or hear much any more, but I'm surprised that for so many millions of dollars being at stake somebody's team of lawyers didn't already hash this out prior to lawsuits being filed.

Years ago I handled some work for Paramount through the Albert G. Ruben company cutting checks to cover legal fees from their E&O policy. They were constantly getting nuisance lawsuits. Including more than one from people claiming they were owed compensation from The Truman Show because their last name was Truman.

They probably acquired the rights to the initial article because they were going to position the original film as 'based on a true story'. Obviously, they didn't need any marketing help with the second movie.

Its happened.

The movie Proof of Life w Russell Crowe was based on an article (Vanity Fair) called "Adventures in the Ransom Trade"

quote:

Originally posted by bdylan:
They probably acquired the rights to the initial article because they were going to position the original film as 'based on a true story'. Obviously, they didn't need any marketing help with the second movie.

quote:

Originally posted by Flash-LB:

"Top Gun: Maverick" is this year's biggest box office hit, generating $291 million in North America and $548.6 million globally in its first 10 days of release...

It is already Cruise's highest-grossing film domestically, surpassing 2005's "War of the Worlds."

Just once I'd like to see a "tickets sold" figure so you could do an apple v apple comparison with some of the classics and hits of the pass.

Gross is based on constantly rising ticket prices and inflation and doesn't IMHO reflect a film's true popularity.

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
Ugh

Looking for a payout now that this may be one of the biggest grossing movies ever?

People suck

It reads like Paramount did acquire the license for the first Top Gun movie.

I'm not rooting for either side, it's just unfortunate this wrinkle happened. I'm sure Paramount has a big enough legal department that they should have headed this off even before the movie was made.

quote:

Originally posted by Blackmore:

Just once I'd like to see a "tickets sold" figure so you could do an apple v apple comparison with some of the classics and hits of the pass.

Gross is based on constantly rising ticket prices and inflation and doesn't IMHO reflect a film's true popularity.

Or one could normalize it for inflation.

Well once it’s pointed out that War of the Worlds was his biggest hit previously it’s obvious there is a flaw in the accounting system. WOTW isn’t even close to being a great movie. I enjoyed it but something is amiss numbers wise if that was his biggest hit. Lol

WRT popularity metrics, tickets sold, revenue, etc. Something else one must normalize for between eras is the vast differences in distribution strategies. For example, I haven't been to a movie theater in decades, as I no longer feel any need to be in the loop on recent movie releases. Far more people these days are content to wait until a movie appears on TV, or a streaming service, or avail themselves of the many pirating options. So box office statistics have little correlation to a film's actual popularity, by which I mean the amount of space it occupies in the general publics' heads.

For film makers and studios, revenues are obviously the single most important reason that movies even exist, perhaps the only reason. Seems as good a metric as any.

I think they'll lose if it goes to court. The name top gun is pre-existing military slang, or even formal terminology, and likely in the public domain, and was prior to the article. And of course, it's a real military training school. Maybe the navy itself would have claim to the trademark for the name, but some author who wrote and article about the school wouldn't.

I’m gonna go watch it this afternoon in a matinée before these lawyering peckerwoods shut it down with an injunction.

quote:

The name top gun is pre-existing military slang, or even formal terminology, and likely in the public domain, and was prior to the article.

The lawsuit isn't over the name. It's over the copywritten authored article which was the premise for the first movie.