Dr. David D. Schein explains why the Ninth Circuit rejected the copyright claim against Top Gun: Maverick, focusing on substantial similarity, protectable expression, real-world facts, and the limits of copyright protection.
Could Top Gun: Maverick infringe the copyright in the 1983 magazine article that helped inspire the original Top Gun?
That was the question at the center of a lawsuit brought by the heirs of journalist Ehud Yonay against Paramount Pictures.
In this Business Law 101 episode, I use the case to explain one of the most important ideas in copyright law:
Two works can share facts, settings, themes and real-world subject matter without being substantially similar in protected expression.
In 1983, California Magazine published Yonay’s article Top Guns, an account of the United States Navy Fighter Weapons School.
Paramount later acquired rights to the article and released the original Top Gun movie in 1986.
After Yonay died, his heirs eventually exercised a statutory right to terminate the earlier copyright grant. Paramount then released Top Gun: Maverick in 2022 without compensating or crediting the heirs.
The heirs sued, alleging copyright infringement and breach of contract.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Paramount in January 2026.
The court acknowledged that the 1983 article and Maverick share some similarities.
Of course they do.
Both deal with the Navy’s real fighter-pilot training program. Both involve military aviators, training, aircraft and the culture surrounding the Top Gun program.
But copyright does not give an author exclusive ownership over those underlying facts or ideas.
The court emphasized that a copyright plaintiff has to identify similarity in original protected expression, not simply similarity arising from the same real-world subject.
That distinction is the heart of this case.
Copyright protects an author’s original way of expressing an idea.
It does not normally protect the idea itself.
It also does not allow someone to monopolize facts about a real institution, real historical setting or familiar subject matter.
If two writers describe the same real fighter-pilot school, both may naturally discuss pilots, instructors, training flights, aerial combat, competition and military culture.
Those common elements do not automatically establish infringement.
The court found that the similarities identified by the plaintiffs largely came from unprotectable facts, general plot ideas, stock scenes and themes associated with the real Top Gun program.
In copyright litigation, saying two works are “similar” is not enough.
The legal question is whether the allegedly infringing work copied enough protectable expression from the copyrighted work to create substantial similarity.
That requires courts to filter out things copyright does not protect before comparing what remains.
In this case, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the plaintiffs had not shown substantial similarity in the protected expression of Yonay’s article.
That is why Paramount won the copyright claim.
The district court excluded the plaintiffs’ literary expert because the court concluded that his analysis did not adequately separate protectable expression from unprotectable facts and ideas.
That is an important litigation lesson.
An expert cannot simply point to a long list of similarities and assume they all count equally under copyright law.
The analysis has to begin by asking whether each alleged similarity is legally protectable.
The heirs also argued that Paramount breached the original agreement with Yonay by failing to credit him in Maverick.
The Ninth Circuit rejected that claim too.
The court interpreted the agreement to require credit only when a film was produced under the rights conferred by that agreement and was substantially based on or adapted from the article.
Because the court concluded that Maverick did not use the article’s copyright-protected expression, Paramount did not produce the sequel under those rights.
The contract claim therefore failed.
This case is a useful reminder for writers, filmmakers, business owners and anyone working with intellectual property.
A copyright can be extremely valuable.
But the scope of that copyright is not unlimited.
You may own your original words, original selection and arrangement, creative descriptions and other protected expression.
You do not automatically own the underlying facts, general ideas, common themes or real-world subject matter.
That becomes especially important in entertainment, journalism and nonfiction, where multiple creators may draw from the same real events.
The legal question is not simply: Do these works look similar?
It is:
What exactly is similar, and is that part actually protected by copyright?
For more Business Law 101 coverage of copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets, browse the DDSA Intellectual Property archive.
You can also read the Ninth Circuit’s published decision in Yonay v. Paramount Pictures Corporation.
Legal disclaimer: This article is for educational and commentary purposes only and is not legal advice.
Watch my full Business Law 101 analysis of the Top Gun: Maverick copyright case
© Copyright 2026 Claremont Management Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved. No copyright asserted over US Government material or the copyrighted material of others.
FREE CLAREMONT RESOURCE
If you’re organizing a Texas business, the decisions around workers, taxes, contracts, privacy, and ongoing compliance can add up quickly. Claremont Management Group has put them into one practical 25-point guide.
