Paramount could have to pay large sum due to Top Gun: Maverick lawsuit
It was the summer movie of the year - but it may have come at a costly price.
Featured Image Credit: Paramount
Topics: Film and TV, Tom Cruise
Ben Thompson
Topics: Film and TV, Tom Cruise
Tom Cruise's return to the skies in Top Gun Maverick was a big earner for Paramount pictures, as fans flocked to cinemas to the tune of a $1.49 billion worldwide gross.
However, the sequel to the beloved 80s classic may come at a big cost for the studio as they might potentially end up paying out a lot of money due to a ongoing lawsuit.
The original Top Gun, released in 1986, was based on an article in California magazine written by Ehud Yonay, which followed the lives of fighter pilots in San Diego.
Advert
Yonay died in 2012 and the story's copyright went to his wife Shosh and son Yuval in 2020, with US copyright law stating that it reverts back to the creator after 35 years.
The two sued Paramount for copyright infringement in June 2022, shortly after the release of the much awaited sequel.
The Yonays claimed that Paramount did not obtain a new license to distribute the material and that they had informed the studio of their intentions to reclaim the rights to the original article in 2020.
Speaking to the BBC, the Yonays' lawyer, Marc Toberoff said: "Much as Paramount wants to pretend otherwise, they made a sequel to Top Gun after they lost their copyright."
And in response, Paramount said: "These claims are without merit, and we will defend ourselves vigorously."
The studio previously attempted to have the lawsuit dropped after filing a motion to have the case dismissed in August 2022.
They argued that the sequel's plot had little to do with the contents of the original article and dismissed any similarities in the film.
The studio said: "Any similarity between these vastly different works derives from the fact that Top Gun is an actual naval training facility.
"Elite fighter pilots loving to fly, and being dedicated to their craft and competitive, are facts described in the article. "Plaintiffs do not have a monopoly over these (unremarkable) facts merely because Yonay once reported on them."
This argument did not convince US District Judge Percy Anderson, however, and he denied Paramount's motion in November.
Anderson wrote: "The Court finds that there are enough alleged similarities between the Article and the Sequel for reasonable minds to differ on the issue of substantial similarity, including the filtering out of unprotected elements."
Paramount have insisted they will continue to 'vigorously defend the lawsuit', whilst the Yonays seek unspecified damages from the studio, as well as an injunction that would bar Paramount from profiting off the movie.
The lawsuit was also changed to include a claim of breach of contract and acknowledgement that the sequel was influenced by Yonay's article, which Paramount have also denied.