Key Takeaway: When drafting an intellectual property contract that will remain valid for years or decades, it is important to include terms that are flexible enough to account for unforeseen eventualities, like spin-offs, sequels, or changing technology. Failure to do so can embroil the draftee in future legal disputes, often with limited chances of success.
In the 1980s, journalist Ehud Yonay wrote an article called “Top Guns,” a descriptive narrative about the United States Navy Fighter Weapon School, a fighter pilot program commonly known as Top Gun. After writing this article, Yonay granted Paramount Pictures a license to use his article as the basis for movies. In exchange for this, Paramount entered into a contract with Yonay to credit him in any movies substantially based on “Top Guns.” True to their word, when Paramount made the movie Top Gun, they credited Yonay as providing some of the inspiration for the film. In 2012, Yonay’s heirs terminated the copyright license to Paramount, leaving the contract intact but revoking Paramount’s permission to base movies off “Top Guns.” Despite this, Paramount created Top Gun: Maverick, a sequel to the original Top Gun, and did so without crediting Yonay. In response, Yonay’s heirs brought a copyright infringement and breach of contract lawsuit against Paramount.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit ruled that Maverick did not infringe Yonay’s copyright. Copyright law protects expression of ideas and facts, but it does not protect those ideas and facts themselves. Unfortunately for Yonay, both the trial and appeals court ruled that the only similarities between the two works were unprotectable facts and ideas. For example, although both works discuss the variable sweep wing on the F-14 fighter jet, Yonay could not claim copyright infringement based on that similarity, as the real-life F-14 fighter jet has variable sweep wings. This is therefore a fact, outside the protection of copyright. Because Yonay could not allege any protectable expression was taken, the court found no copyright infringement. Accordingly, the court also rejected Yonay’s breach of contract claim stemming from Paramount Pictures’ failure to credit Yonay in the creation of Maverick. Because the court found that Maverick was not substantially based on or inspired by the copyrighted expression in “Top Guns,” the contractual language requiring crediting was not triggered. Thus, Paramount Pictures did not have to credit Yonay as providing inspiration for Maverick, regardless of the fact that it was a sequel to Top Gun.
This case emphasizes the importance of careful contractual drafting in intellectual property matters. Since the court ruled that Maverick only took unprotectable facts and concepts from “Top Guns,” Yonay’s copyright claim was unlikely to ever succeed. However, if the underlying contract, which remained valid, had included language requiring crediting Yonay in any sequels to movies made under the license, the contract claim may have played out differently. Paramount had credited Yonay in Top Gun, which Maverick is a sequel to. This fact would make it difficult for Paramount to argue that they did not need to credit Yonay when creating Maverick, had the contract accounted for sequels. Because the contract was too narrowly drafted, however, it failed to cover such a situation.
The Ninth Circuit’s full decision can be read here: – https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/01/02/24-2897.pdf
Subscribe for News and Updates
