Affirmed: Movie Sequel Did Not Infringe Copyright of Nonfiction Magazine Article
By McKenna Ford
A recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit illustrates the narrow scope of copyright protection afforded to nonfiction works and the fact-intensive inquiry required to distinguish protectable creative expression from unprotectable facts and ideas. See Yonay v. Paramount Pictures Corp., No. 24-2897, 2026 WL 17168 (9th Cir. 2026).
The dispute centers on a 1983 magazine article titled “Top Guns” which vividly described the Navy’s elite fighter-pilot training program and followed two pilots through their experience at Top Gun. After the author granted Paramount the rights to the article, Paramount released the 1986 film “Top Gun,” crediting the author with its inspiration. The author’s heirs later terminated the agreement with Paramount pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 203(a)(3), a statute which permits authors or their heirs to terminate certain copyright grants between 35 and 40 years after execution. In 2022, Paramount released “Top Gun: Maverick,” a sequel to “Top Gun” that depicts characters’ experiences in the Top Gun program. The author’s heirs sued Paramount for copyright infringement and breach of contract, alleging that the movie infringed on central elements of the article, including the plot, pacing, themes, dialogue, characters and settings.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment for Paramount, holding that while the sequel and the magazine article shared many similarities, the sequel did not “share substantial amounts of the original expression of” the magazine article. The Court explained that to prevail, the heirs were required to show Paramount copied original, protectable elements of the magazine article. Significantly, copyright law does not protect ideas, concepts or real-world facts.
The Court acknowledged that the article contained protectable expression, such as its specific phrasing and narrative structure, but concluded that those elements were absent from the sequel. For example, the article recounted real events using a nonlinear narrative, whereas the sequel employed a linear storyline. Critically, the similarities identified by the heirs were framed at a high level of abstraction. Both works were set at a fighter-pilot training school, depicted pilots landing on aircraft carriers, and showed pilots drinking and carousing at a bar. These elements, however, were deemed unprotected facts, general plot ideas, or familiar “stock scenes,” rather than protectable expression.
This decision reinforces the low level of copyright protection afforded to nonfiction works and the thin line between protected and unprotected expression. Where a work documents real people and events, the copyright only extends to the arrangement and creative presentation of the factual information, not the facts and ideas themselves.
Nevertheless, anyone creating a derivative work or taking inspiration from a nonfiction work should document their creative process and carefully ensure that they use only the underlying facts and ideas of the original work, avoiding the protected expressive elements of that work.
Parsons' copyright attorneys draw upon a broad range of experience in technology, the arts, and the law to serve the needs of clients who are creators or consumers of creative works.
