“Talk to me, Goose.” Have you already heard this iconic line in the new film Top Gun: Maverick? If not, you may want to make a trip to the cinema soon. Earlier this June, Paramount Pictures was hit with a copyright infringement lawsuit, meaning the film’s fate could ultimately be decided in court.
The heirs of Ehud Yonay, whose article inspired Paramount Pictures to produce the original Top Gun film, argue that the studio had no right to release the sequel because the copyright in the underlying work reverted to the Yonay family back in 2020.
The dispute stems from a unique feature of US copyright law. American lawmakers have long sought to protect authors, who often find themselves in a weaker bargaining position when negotiating with major publishers or Hollywood studios.
Under certain conditions, authors may reclaim rights they previously assigned to another party after 35 years have passed. Once those rights revert, the author is free to renegotiate their use or prevent further exploitation of the work. In practice, this could mean stopping a rights holder from releasing a sequel based on the author’s original creation.
Incidentally, recent amendments to Lithuania’s Law on Copyright and Related Rights have been driven by a similar rationale, strengthening the position of creators in their dealings with those who acquire their rights.
Returning to the United States, however, the Top Gun: Maverick dispute is not quite so straightforward. US copyright legislation contains an important exception: if the assignee completes a derivative work before the 35-year reversion period expires, they may continue to benefit from and exploit the work they have created. This is precisely the argument emphasised by Paramount Pictures.
According to the studio, Top Gun: Maverick was already in its final stages of production before the rights reverted to the Yonay family. The film’s release was simply delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic.
As a result, the court will need to determine what constitutes a “completed” work for the purposes of the law. In addition, the studio argues that, unlike the original Top Gun, the new film is not based on Yonay’s article published in California magazine. According to Paramount Pictures, the storyline has evolved so far beyond the source material that the sequel should be regarded as an independent work. On that basis, the studio maintains that all relevant rights belong to it.
Whatever the outcome, it appears unlikely that a court would order the film to be withdrawn from public distribution. In copyright disputes of this kind, courts more commonly award financial compensation rather than prohibit the continued exhibition of a work.
