Since the copyright didn't revert back to them until January 2020, and production had started in 2018, wouldn't that be a factor?

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:
I'm sure Paramount has a big enough legal department that they should have headed this off even before the movie was made.

Or they did the analysis and decided they had low risk. But still, lawyers are not in the "low risk" business, so the business people made the ultimate decision if they decided to take that risk. Or maybe someone missed this.

quote:

Originally posted by M-11:
Since the copyright didn't revert back to them until January 2020, and production had started in 2018, wouldn't that be a factor?

Assuming the rights matter, you have to have them at all relevant times, which would generally include release. Again, we would have to know what is actually in the agreement for these rights to be able to say anything worth saying.

If an article is non fiction. The USN Fighter Weapons School (AKA Top Gun) is a real institution, in which the author has no interest. Does the author of the article have a copywrite on the subject matter on which it's based? Does anyone who creates anything referencing Top Gun own them royalties?

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

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.

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.

One can find top grossing films "adjusted for inflation". On numerous lists, Gone With The Wind is the box office champ, earning almost 4 billion dollars in adjusted dollars.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
Of course, that won't stop a lot of people from having an opinion.

Of course it won’t stop folks from having an opinion. I dunno who is right (or who will eventually “win”). Here’s hoping that the reporting is halfway decent.

Did the article in question talk about MiG 28’s and have characters? This seems strange, including paying them in the first place. If I read an article about LeBron and then write a script about basketball it seems a stretch to pay anybody for what is common knowledge to anyone.

Not a lawyer but I’m betting this has no legs.

I am not a lawyer but the people that are referencing top gun as a way to duck are going in the wrong direction.

This in my mind is like the James Bond franchise.

There is a British secret service but the rest is fictional characters. Copyrighted with With the legal rights that go with it. Movie makers pay dearly for those rights.

On a funny side note. Ian Fleming admits getting the name from an author of ornithology books he was reading when he wrote the books.

The real James Bond gets calls from drunk women looking for the real James Bond.
His wife answers the phone and tells them she is the real Pussy Galore and she is keeping him busy.

Life imitating art.

I am willing to bet this settles for a good chunk of change unless they bought the rights outright for the previous movie.

The lawyers for the plaintiffs are saying Paramount was on Notice in 2018 that the rights expire in January 2020.

If the film makers didn’t legally need to purchase the rights they wouldn’t have purchased them the first time (or given the original author credit in the original).

The same attorney representing the family is the same attorney who represented families against Marvel. Similar situations where the copywrites were recaptured by the estates of the original authors.

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:

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.

One can find top grossing films "adjusted for inflation". On numerous lists, Gone With The Wind is the box office champ, earning almost 4 billion dollars in adjusted dollars.

That's interesting but it made me consider that back then there weren't many alternatives for entertainment. With today's many more choices, making a dent in the market place means much more. All this to say I guess it's more complex to try to normalize metrics to make a fair comparison.