The Top Gun: Maverick copyright claim was rejected by the Ninth Circuit in a January 2, 2026 ruling. A three-judge panel affirmed summary judgment for Paramount, finding no infringement of the 1983 “Top Guns” article that inspired the original film. The court emphasized: what was similar wasn’t protected, and what was protected wasn’t similar.
This Top Gun: Maverick copyright decision is a clear reminder for screenwriters: copyright law guards original expression only—not facts, ideas, or broad concepts. Misunderstand these rules, and your script faces the same legal failure point that doomed the plaintiffs’ $1.5 billion claim.
Top Gun: Maverick Copyright Claim – Case Breakdown
The 1983 Source Ehud Yonay’s “Top Guns” (California Magazine, May 1983): 11-page nonfiction on the U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School. Featured New Journalism style with vivid imagery (e.g., F-14 flights as “yanking and banking” in a storm) and subjective details on pilots (“Yogi,” “Possum”), training, and culture.
1986 Film: Paramount licensed the article for a fixed sum + credit. Added fiction: Pete “Maverick” Mitchell, Iceman rivalry, Goose’s death, romance, dogfights. Yonay credited.
2022 Sequel: Top Gun: Maverick grossed $1.5B. Maverick trains pilots including Goose’s son Rooster for a uranium-plant mission. New elements: Penny romance, Iceman’s death, unauthorized demo flight, F-14 theft. Drew mainly from the 1986 movie’s world—not the article.
The Claims: Heirs terminated the license (17 U.S.C. § 203) and sued for Top Gun: Maverick copyright infringement (shared plot, themes, mood) and breach (no credit). Similarities described at high abstraction: “best of the best in fighter aviation.”
Ninth Circuit Holding
- Used extrinsic test: Filter unprotected elements (facts, ideas, scènes à faire). Compare protectable expression.
- No substantial similarity in protected content. Maverick added unique plot (trainer arc, mission details), avoided the article’s nonlinear style.
- No breach: 1983 deal didn’t cover sequels based on the first film.
Judge Eric D. Miller’s line: “Their claim of substantial similarity fails because what is protected is not similar, and what is similar is not protected.”
Copyright Physics Screenwriters Must Understand
17 U.S.C. § 102(b): Copyright does not protect ideas, procedures, processes, systems, concepts, principles, or discoveries.
Core Rules from the Top Gun: Maverick Copyright Ruling:
- Facts & Real Events Are Free Fuel: Top Gun program details, pilot training, aircraft specs—these are facts. Maverick used real history without copying expressive phrasing. Lesson: Adapt true stories freely. Build strength through original expression—specific dialogue, unique arcs, distinct beats.
- High-Level Abstraction Kills Claims: Themes like “redemption” or “best of the best” are ideas. High-abstraction descriptions make similarities non-protectable. Lesson: Avoid vague concepts for protection or similarity arguments. Focus on specific story mechanics.
- Scenes à Faire & Stock Elements: Military drills, elite training vibe—these are genre inevitabilities. Unprotectable. Lesson: Tropes are public domain. Add original synthesis to claim them.
- Selection & Arrangement Can Be Protectable – But Only If Original: The article’s nonlinear structure was original—but Maverick‘s linear plot + additions didn’t copy it. Lesson: Your story sequence is your moat. Don’t rely on shared facts alone.
- Sequels & Licensing Gotchas: No sequel clause = no credit/profits for Maverick. Lesson: Negotiate derivative rights carefully. Narrow agreements often backfire.
Reddit Reality Check – What Screenwriters Are Saying
r/Screenwriting and r/movies threads on this ruling (and similar past cases) reveal consistent frustration and practical takeaways among writers:
- Many point to the missing sequel clause: “Should have negotiated sequel payouts from the start.” Writers lament how the 1983 deal only covered the first film, leaving heirs without leverage for derivatives—even after the original article’s rights were licensed and credited.
- A common defense of the ruling: “Sequels derive from the prior film, not the source article.” Commenters note that fictional characters (Maverick, Goose, Iceman) and arcs were created by the original screenwriters, not the nonfiction piece. The sequel built on that movie world, not the 1983 article’s facts or style.
- Broader consensus: IP law is tough but fair—protect your own expression, don’t chase unprotected ideas. Threads echo that greed drives some overreach claims, but the ruling reinforces a key reality: facts and high-level ideas are free for everyone; only original creative choices get protection. One recurring sentiment: “Lawsuits (and settlements) can be expensive regardless of the justness of one’s cause,” highlighting why studios sometimes license broadly to avoid risk.
These discussions (including echoes from 2022–2026 coverage) show screenwriters grappling with the same tension: how to secure rights without overpaying for non-protectable material.
Deploy These Lessons – Avoid the Failure Point
The Top Gun: Maverick copyright ruling underscores: Use facts and ideas freely, but create original expression. Apply the extrinsic filter mentally: Strip unprotected elements. Remaining matches? Red flag.
It’s interesting how the court differentiates between protectable and unprotectable elements. This ruling really underscores the importance of originality in screenwriting—especially in a world where so many ideas are recycled or inspired by real events.
That is a great observation. The court’s distinction really highlights that while “facts” and “concepts” are free fuel for everyone, your specific execution is the only thing you actually own.
Judge Miller’s line from the ruling sums it up perfectly: “What is protected is not similar, and what is similar is not protected.”
It’s a reassuring precedent for screenwriters. It confirms that you don’t need to fear legal action just for writing in a similar genre or using the same real-world inspiration, as long as your character arcs, dialogue, and structural choices (your “expression”) are truly your own.
On a side note, the article’s mention of the missing sequel clause in the original 1983 contract is another huge lesson here—always negotiate for derivative rights!