{"id":58315,"date":"2022-08-27T21:25:04","date_gmt":"2022-08-27T21:25:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/harchi90.com\/top-gun-maverick-copyright-lawsuit-should-be-grounded-paramount-deadline\/"},"modified":"2022-08-27T21:25:04","modified_gmt":"2022-08-27T21:25:04","slug":"top-gun-maverick-copyright-lawsuit-should-be-grounded-paramount-deadline","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/harchi90.com\/top-gun-maverick-copyright-lawsuit-should-be-grounded-paramount-deadline\/","title":{"rendered":"‘Top Gun Maverick’ Copyright Lawsuit Should Be Grounded: Paramount \u2013 Deadline"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

\u201cIt’s not the plane, it’s the pilot,\u201d they say in the Tom Cruise-starring blockbuster Top Gun: Maverick,<\/em> and that’s kind of what Paramount thinks about a copyright argument they’ve been slapped with over the fighter jet movie.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhen the Court reviews the article and Maverick, as opposed to Plaintiffs’ irrelevant and misleading purported comparison of the works, it is clear as a matter of law that Maverick does not borrow any of the article’s protected expression,\u201d says Paramount in a motion to dismiss response filed Friday in federal court in California.<\/p>\n

\u201cPlaintiffs do not have a monopoly over works about Top Gun<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n

The dispute is between Paramount Pictures and the Israeli-based widow and son of the author of a 1983 article that inspired the original 1986 movie.<\/p>\n

In a copyright suit filed earlier this summer in California federal court, Shosh Yonay and Yuval Yonay want unspecified but clearly big-bucks damages from the studio. They also requested an injunction to stop screenings and distribution of the May 27-released sequel, as well as any more more movies in the franchise.<\/p>\n

calling Top Gun: Maverick<\/em> \u201cderivative,\u201d the Marc Toberoff- and Alex Kozinski-represented Yonays alleged that Paramount is \u201cthumbing its nose at the statute\u201d that allows the termination of rights after 35 years (read the court complaint here).<\/p>\n

The studio response claimed Friday the film doesn’t borrow from the article.<\/p>\n

Seeking unspecified damages, the family originally claimed that the \u201cderivative\u201d Maverick<\/em> sequel runs contrary to the termination rights that they claim they hold over the property.<\/p>\n

\u201cTo the contrary, any similarity between these vastly different works derives from the fact that Top Gun<\/em> is an actual naval training facility,\u201d states the August 26th filing by Daniel Petrocelli and Molly N. Lens of the law firm O’Melveny & Myers, representing the studio.<\/p>\n

\u201cThese claims are entirely without merit, and we will continue to vigorously defend this argument,\u201d said a Paramount spokesperson to deadline<\/em> today in language reminiscent of their initial response to the argument.<\/p>\n

In yet another rematch between Petrocelli and plaintiff’s lawyer Marc Toveroff, along with associate Alex Kozinski, Paramount has asked the court for a hearing on Sept. 26.<\/p>\n

Certainly, there are some high-flying stakes at play here. The long-awaited Cruise sequel to the iconic Reagan-era movie has pulled in a total of nearly $1.4 billion worldwide since its release in theaters in late May.<\/p>\n

Petrocelli and Toveroff have battled on numerous infringement cases over the years.<\/p>\n

In the May 1983 edition of California<\/em> magazine, Ehud Yonay penned \u201cTop Guns,\u201d about the pilots and program \u201clocated in a second-floor cubby of offices at the east end of Hangar One at Miramar.\u201d The piece was optioned ASAP and Yonay was cited in the credits of the first Top Gun<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The rights to the article reverted back to the Yonays in January 2020.<\/p>\n

Read the complete filing here: MTD<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n