Top Gun: Maverick Copyright Lawsuit: Ninth Circuit Affirms No Infringement in Yonay v. Paramount

Short answer: In Yonay v. Paramount Pictures Corp., the Ninth Circuit held that Top Gun: Maverick did not infringe the copyright in the 1983 article “Top Guns” because the film did not copy protectable expression. The court also held that Paramount did not breach the parties’ credit provision. This decision offers important guidance on copyright infringement, substantial similarity, and entertainment contract drafting.

Case Background: Yonay v. Paramount and the Top Gun Article Rights

On January 2, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Paramount Pictures in a copyright and contract dispute over Top Gun: Maverick. The plaintiffs, Shosh and Yuval Yonay, own the copyright in “Top Guns,” an 11-page 1983 California Magazine article written by journalist Ehud Yonay about the Navy’s Fighter Weapons School, commonly known as Top Gun.

Shortly after the article was published, Yonay granted Paramount rights to the article. Paramount later released the 1986 film Top Gun, which credited the article as the source material. After Yonay’s death in 2012, his widow and son became copyright owners. In 2020, they terminated the prior grant under Section 203 of the Copyright Act, a statute that allows authors or certain heirs to end qualifying transfers after a set period.

When Paramount released Top Gun: Maverick in 2022 without paying or crediting the Yonays, they sued for copyright infringement and breach of contract.

What the Ninth Circuit Decided in the Top Gun: Maverick Copyright Case

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court across the board.

• Copyright claim: Affirmed. The court held that Maverick was not substantially similar to the article’s protectable expression.
• Expert testimony: Affirmed. The district court acted within its discretion in excluding the plaintiffs’ expert and allowing Paramount’s expert.
• Breach of contract claim: Affirmed. The court held that the credit provision in the 1983 agreement was not triggered.

Because the case was resolved at summary judgment, the court focused on the Ninth Circuit’s extrinsic test. That is the objective part of the substantial similarity analysis. It filters out unprotectable material, such as facts, ideas, and stock elements, and compares only protectable expression.

Why the Court Found No Copyright Infringement

1. Copyright protects expression, not facts or ideas. The court emphasized a basic rule of copyright law: protection does not extend to ideas, concepts, systems, or facts. That mattered here because both works drew from the same real-world subject matter, the Navy’s Top Gun training program.

2. The claimed similarities were too abstract. The court said the Yonays described overlap at too high a level of generality. In the panel’s words, “what is protected is not similar, and what is similar is not protected.” The shared premise of elite aviator training, aerial maneuvers, and mission pressure was not enough.

3. The article and the film used different protectable expression. The court found no meaningful overlap in plot, sequence, characters, dialogue, or pace once unprotectable elements were filtered out. The article is a nonfiction magazine piece with a nonlinear structure and descriptive digressions. Maverick, by contrast, is a conventional feature film with a traditional dramatic arc.

4. The expert analysis did not fix the problem. The plaintiffs’ expert pointed to broad similarities, including a familiar redemption arc. The court agreed with the district court that this analysis focused on unprotectable elements rather than original expression.

The contract claim failed for a related reason. The 1983 agreement required screen credit only if specified conditions were met, including that the later film be produced under the agreement and be substantially based on the article or an adaptation of it. Because the court found no actionable use of protectable expression, it concluded the credit provision was not triggered.

Practical Takeaways for Studios, Content Companies, and In-House Counsel

For companies that create films, series, documentaries, games, and other narrative content, the decision reinforces a core copyright rule: shared facts, themes, and subject matter do not by themselves establish infringement. The legal question is whether the later work copies protectable expression.

Companies developing sequels, adaptations, docudramas, or projects based on real events should build a clear record of independent creative development. Teams should separate factual research from source-specific expressive choices and preserve those distinctions in development files.

The ruling also highlights the importance of precise contract drafting. If a credit clause, sequel clause, or adaptation clause is meant to apply broadly, the agreement should say so clearly. If the trigger is narrow, courts may enforce it as written.

For legal and business teams evaluating risk, several practical steps stand out:

• Filter out unprotectable elements before comparing works.
• Assess plot, sequence, dialogue, characters, pace, and structure at the level of protectable expression.
• Review legacy rights agreements before releasing sequels or derivative projects.
• Coordinate early between creative, business, and legal teams when historical source material is involved.