Four years of legal battles, millions of dollars at stake, and the future of a blockbuster franchise hanging in the balance—all because of a magazine article from the 1980s. But here's where it gets controversial: Did Top Gun: Maverick really infringe on the copyright of a long-forgotten piece of journalism, or was this lawsuit a stretch from the start? Let’s dive in.
Paramount has finally emerged victorious in the high-stakes lawsuit surrounding Top Gun: Maverick, the 2022 sequel that soared to nearly $1.5 billion at the global box office. Directed by Joseph Kosinski and starring Tom Cruise, the film reignited the adrenaline-fueled world of naval aviation, introducing new characters while reuniting fans with beloved originals. Its success wasn’t just commercial—critics praised its jaw-dropping visuals, tight storytelling, and emotional depth, cementing it as one of the year’s most acclaimed releases. Only Avatar: The Way of Water outpaced it in earnings, a testament to Maverick’s cultural impact.
But behind the scenes, a legal storm was brewing. In June 2022, the estate of Ehud Yonay—author of the 1983 California magazine article Top Guns—filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Paramount. Yonay’s piece, which explored the intense lives of U.S. Navy fighter pilots, had inspired the original 1986 Top Gun. His son and widow argued that Paramount failed to secure a new license for the sequel after the article’s copyright reverted to the Yonay estate in 2020. And this is the part most people miss: While Yonay was credited and compensated for the first film, the question of whether Maverick relied too heavily on his original work became a legal minefield.
The case took a dramatic turn in April 2024 when a court dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that Maverick wasn’t substantially similar to Top Guns. Now, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has upheld that decision. Judge Eric D. Miller, joined by Judges Andrew D. Hurwitz and Jennifer Sung, stated unequivocally, ‘The expression in Maverick is not substantially similar to the original expression in “Top Guns.”’ The panel found no evidence of shared protectable elements, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to prove copyright infringement.
Here’s where it gets tricky: While Maverick clearly builds on the characters and world established in the 1986 film, the court ruled that it doesn’t borrow enough from Yonay’s article to warrant a claim. But is this a fair interpretation? Some argue that the line between inspiration and infringement is blurrier than the court suggests. After all, the original Top Gun was undeniably shaped by Yonay’s work. Should sequels be held to a different standard?
For now, Paramount’s victory seems justified. Top Gun: Maverick stands as a testament to the power of storytelling, both in its cinematic achievements and its ability to navigate legal challenges. But the debate isn’t over. What do you think? Did the court get it right, or should the Yonay estate have been granted a larger stake in Maverick’s success? Let us know in the comments—this conversation is far from finished.
