As Top Gun: Maverick rides in to the money zone, a new lawsuit threatens to take its breath away
The family of the writer whose article inspired the original movie is coming after Paramount
Aux News Maverick
Top Gun: Maverick is riding high, with audiences all over the world feeling the need for speed and giving Tom Cruise one of the biggest hits of his entire career, but all of that showboating and fancy-flying has gotten Paramount some attention that it probably would’ve preferred to avoid: According to Deadline, the family of late writer Ehud Yonay, who wrote the 1983 article “Top Guns” for the now-defunct California magazine that inspired the original Top Gun movie, has filed a lawsuit against the studio for infringing on Yonay’s copyright.
Yonay is mentioned in the credits of the original film, which note that the movie was “suggested by” the “Top Guns” article, with this lawsuit explaining that the rights to the article were set to return to the Yonays 35 years after it was originally sold to Paramount—which puts it in January of 2020. In the lead-up to that date, with no Top Gun sequel having been released yet, the Yonays says they went through the requisite copyright hoops to inform Paramount that they would indeed like the rights back once that date had passed.
With Top Gun: Maverick not coming out until this year, the Yonays argue that it no longer counts as a derivative work that would be covered under the original agreement, meaning Paramount should have worked out a new deal with them before releasing it. Since the studio did not do that, Deadline says the Yonays are looking for “big bucks” in terms of damages and “an injunction to stop screenings and distribution” of the film (even though it has already been in theaters for two weeks now).
Paramount has officially entered its response in court, but a spokesperson told Deadline that the claims “are without merit” and that the studio will defend itself “vigorously.” The studio also reportedly told the Yonays “last month” that Maverick was “sufficiently completed” before January of 2020, which the Yonays believe to be a “disingenuous attempt” to get the new film covered by the old deal.
One wrinkle in this, possibly the most important wrinkle, is that Top Gun: Maverick was delayed many, many times over the years. It was first announced a decade ago but then indefinitely pushed back after the death of original director Tony Scott. The version that eventually came out, directed by Joseph Kosinski, was filmed years ago and was originally set to be released in 2019 before being delayed into 2020 and then delayed again because of the pandemic.
So it seems like the question is how much of the movie was finished by January of 2020 and whether or not that even matters since it wasn’t released until 2022.
28 Comments
Don’t forget Dicktown, it’s pretty hilarious.
I’m trying to figure out the whole copyright angle. It was a non-fiction article about a US Navy training unit. I can see where filmmakers would’ve needed to license Tom Wolfe’s book “The Right Stuff” for their 1983 movie. It was about real people and events, but borrowed its narrative structure from Wolfe’s book. However, I don’t see how the 1983 California magazine article bears a relationship to the movies other than describing a program, and inspiring a filmmaker to look into it and dream up a story set there.
The article, while technically non-fiction, focuses on a hot shot pilot and his co-pilot and is written more like a non-fiction story. Paramount bought the rights from Yonay to make a movie about it and specifically fashioned the main characters, and even some of the events of the script around his story. Really the only argument either side has here is when the derivative work was finished. The copyright reverted back to Yonay’s descendants on 1/24/2020, as it appears they properly filed the termination papers as laid out by current copyright law, and Paramount never attempted to renew the licensing agreement. What it’s going to come down to is the adjudication of “finished” for a film. Copyright law doesn’t require any “publication” of a work, and reading the complaint linked from Deadline, I could see Yonay’s estate running into issues with their claim there. When it comes to film copyright claims the courts have pretty much always asserted that the script is the first thing establishing copyright, and this script was written many years before the termination of Paramounts copyright of the original material, that it could still make derivative works from without having to enter into a new licensing agreement.
So you’ve got to assume Paramount execs were getting very excited about fast-tracking Top Gun 3, right up until the moment this suit was filed. Assuming Maverick did do enough to beat the cut off, would they now be kicking themselves at not have renewed the copyright anyway, or would Maverick’s existence extend the clock?
I’m pretty sure Paramount freakin’ Pictures can afford to pay whatever this dude wants to renew the rights for Top Gun 3, especially given TG:M is gonna gross over a billion worldwide almost assuredly.
Oh, I’m sure they can afford it, but it will probably now cost them significantly more than if they’d renewed before the original deal expired, hence the “kicking themselves”.
Paramount’s copyright was reverting back to Yonay’s descendants on 1/24/2020 no matter what happened with Maverick. Paramounts only option to extend it would have been to enter into a new licensing agreement with Yonya’s estate before that date. It wasn’t the type of licensing agreement (like Sony has with Marvel regarding Spider-Man) where if an IP isn’t used commercially for some set period of time the copyright reverts back to the original copyright holder.
TL:DR: they weren’t obligated to license it, but it was either a good idea or required by the agents who arranged the match.Think of it in two parts, working backwards: Firstly, this film is, as a sequel, unquestionably a derivative work of the first film, and so the right to male it and own it is either controlled by Paramount, under the terms of the original agreement; or that agreement is terminated and the movie-rights had reverted back to the owner of that article.So, then, why was Paramount (really, Simpson/Bruckheimer,) *obligated* to license the movie-rights from an article in “California” magazine merely describing a military program and/or inspiring – let’s generalize it – producers to commission a script with a made-up story and characters set there?[And forget about “borrowed its narrative structure from Wolfe’s book” – that’s immaterial. Structures get inherently re-worked to all degrees in almost all adaptations.]Well, they *weren’t* obligated, necessarily. There would be nothing specifically stopping a writer coming up with an original fictional story set in a “job like that”, and having it made. But there are a number of scenarios that make it more helpful to simply option and then license the film rights from a legit-published nonfiction written work – not limited to:If it was an expose or secret-program officially revealed/discussed/declassified, or a barely-known subject comprehensively discussed in a national publication, then it will be extremely “provable” where the story was sourced and it could easily get successfully sued for far more than the cost of licensing it. The author would be a valuable consultant/resource, an introduction to their sources and contacts, and typically one gets the reporters’ notes and so much more information, detail and background that was too much to put in the final version of the article. The article has been fact-checked and insured by the original publication, which indemnifies the screenwriter & optionholder from lawsuits over claims based in the *source material*. protecting the filmmakers. And, last but def not least, many times the source Magazine or Book’s publisher (or celebrity-author) agent is in the same huge and powerful agency as the agent for the film producer or screenwriter – so a license between the parties leads to commissions earned on both ends for projects and any sequels (and today many agencies take a financing and producroial role as well – which is going to lead to many many lawsuits in 20 years.)
The fact that they optioned the rights to the story probably causes the studio more headache than anything else. If they’d just written a story based on a non-fiction account, there’s not much anyone could do about it. But once they put something in writing tying their film to this article, and included clauses about subsequent works, now it gets more complicated.
Yeah if Yonay’s name is in the credits of the film that does make these water murky.
YEAH! And why do filmmakers have to pay the writers of fiction to use their books??????
Meh, this one is pretty lame. Ambulance chasers.
“I feel the need . . . the need for cash!”
“Let’s kick the tires and mind the bank accounts!”
Your copyright-compliance team’s writing cheques your studio can’t cash!
That is pretty close to a New York Post headline before New York Post headlines were puerile Nazi/Trump/Murdoch propaganda.Kudos.
No way. The AV Club’s headline is lazy and dumb. It doesn’t hold a candle to NY Post classics like “JACKO ON HIS BACKO”
I mean it’s basically on the same level as 90% of AV Club comments
I realize that copyright law may not be on my side, but I have essentially zero patience for these suits brought by family and descendants of someone who created something, demanding cash from other people who later created something. I don’t care if the original work was a song, a magazine article, a novel, or a photograph – the fact that you are related to someone who did something fifty years ago does not entitle you to riches.
“the fact that you are related to someone who did something fifty years ago does not entitle you to riches.”
Why not? Why should the studio be able to make as much money off the IP as they can but not pay to use the rights?
You’re a fucking idiot.
I mean, this is basically how inheritance and generational wealth works, regardless of how the money was made. Most of the time when intellectual property rights (or stake in a business, or whatever) is handed down to family members, it’s done with the express purpose of ensuring their family will still be able to profit off of whatever was handed down. We like to trash on riches-to-rags stories, and often rightfully so, but I have to imagine it’s quite tough to have your lifestyle and financial stability suddenly vanish like that. Especially when you’re talking about a journalist and not some old-money entrepreneur. If he intended for his family to profit off of his intellectual property, then they should be able to do that. I mean, can you really in good conscience say you’d prefer a billion-dollar media conglomerate to profit instead of the writer’s family?
Except the writer’s family didn’t do jack. They didn’t write a single word. I’m all for the original artist cashing in, big time. Put that money into a IRA and pass your inheritance on to whoever you like. But this article was written over 30 years ago. The people demanding cash today didn’t create anything. Copyright – at least when it’s functioning properly – serves to protect the creative process but these are people who simply feel entitled. To me, they seem as deserving of ongoing infusions of cash as the British royal family is deserving of their wealth and titles, because both are an accident of birth.
Oh this is actually interesting and holds some merit. I wonder if the whole “completed by 2019″ thing will hold up.
“I wonder if the whole “completed by 2019″ thing will hold up.”
Considering that “completed by 2019″ isn’t mentioned literally anywhere by anyone, WTF are you talking about?
This article from Collider, dated April 2020, directly states they were still actively in post-production work at that time. And specifically, given the title, that the film was not finished at that time. https://collider.com/top-gun-maverick-release-date-delay-explained/
It sounds like the studio is in the right, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they threw a bunch of cash at this in the form of a settlement just to make it go away.
I’m sure there are extremely detailed and copious records detailing the amount of work still necessary to hammer the film into its current form post 2019. So much work.
Did a little searching and found an article from Collider, dated April 16, 2020, titled “Top Gun: Maverick Director Says Film Will Be Completed On Time, Despite Delays,” in which Kosinski explains the film was still in active post-production at that time. It includes a quote from a ComicBook.com interview published 2 days prior, in which Kosinski states:We are sticking to our schedule and finishing the movie just as if it were coming out on its original release date. Luckily, I’m in the home stretch of post-production where, despite all the restrictions on how you can work now, I’m able to continue doing my job and finish the movie. Which is pretty amazing. If I were in any other phase of the project, it would be hard to do that. But because I’m in the tail end of post, I’m able to do everything I need to, to finish it. So we’re sticking to it and sticking to our schedule and finishing the movie and then just holding it for six months.Seems 100% clear to me that the film was not finished in 2019 based on what the director himself said. Clearly the film was not finished when the rights reverted in January of that year.
Everybody involved in the original animated version of Disney’s “The Lion King” got exactly zero dollars when the CGI “live action” version was made.This lawsuit is going nowhere.