Paramount Pictures has won a copyright lawsuit brought by the heirs to the author of an article that inspired the original Top Gun film.
The elements from the sequel, including plot, theme, setting and dialogue are largely dissimilar from Ehud Yonay's 1983 magazine story. This means that any overlapping factual similarities aren't protected by copyright law.
Paramount Pictures has won a copyright lawsuit brought by the heirs to the author of an article that inspired the original Top Gun film. The elements from the sequel, including plot, theme, setting and dialogue are largely dissimilar from Ehud Yonay's 1983 magazine story. This means that any overlapping factual similarities aren't protected by copyright law.
It is possible that there may be some overlap in the plot or theme of the original article and the sequel, which could potentially infringe on copyright laws.
Paramount Studios secured a win after it faced a copyright lawsuit in 2022.
Ehud Yonay's 1983 magazine article inspired the original Top Gun film that was released in 1986. After the sequel, Top Gun: Maverick, was released in 2022, Yonay's family hit the network with a lawsuit.
The elements of Maverick including plot, theme, setting and dialogue did not overlap with Ehud Yonay's article according to the judge.
Accuracy
The elements of Maverick including plot, theme, setting and dialogue did not overlap with Ehud Yonay's 1983 article according to the judge.
Several elements from the film, including plot, theme, setting and dialogue are largely dissimilar from Ehud Yonay's article. Any overlapping factual similarities aren't protected by copyright law.
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(85%)
The article discusses a copyright lawsuit filed by the family of Ehud Yonay against Paramount Studios for using his 1983 magazine article as inspiration for the original Top Gun film. The sequel, Top Gun: Maverick, was also accused of being derivative from the original article. However, U.S District Judge Percy Anderson dismissed the case on Friday and stated that elements such as plot, theme, setting and dialogue did not overlap with Yonay's 1983 article. The judge found that Paramount hit with Top Gun: Maverick copyright lawsuit was completely without merit.
Paramount denied the sequel is derivative from the original article.
Paramount hit with ‘TOP GUN: MAVERICK’ copyright LAWSUIT
Paramount Studios defeated the copyright lawsuit against the Tom Cruise-led Top Gun: Maverick.
The elements of "Maverick," including plot, theme, setting and dialogue did not overlap with Ehud Yonay's 1983 article.
The family of Ehud Yonay had a deal with Paramount Pictures ahead of the original Top Gun, which was released in 1986.
The original "Top Gun" film released in 1986, which was inspired by Ehud Yonay's 1983 magazine article.
Top Gun: Maverick premiered after two years of delays due to the coronavirus pandemic.
Paramount has won a copyright lawsuit brought by the heirs to the author of a 1983 magazine story that inspired the original Top Gun.
Several elements from the film, including plot, theme, setting and dialogue are largely dissimilar from Ehud Yonay's article. Any overlapping factual similarities aren't protected by copyright law.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Paramount has prevailed in a copyright lawsuit brought by the heirs to Ehud Yonay's article which inspired Top Gun. However, this statement is misleading as it implies that there was no dispute between the parties and that Paramount had not infringed on any copyright laws. In reality, the court found that several elements from the film were largely dissimilar from Ehud Yonay's article and concluded that any overlapping factual similarities weren't protected by copyright law. Secondly, in a statement made by Marc Toberoff representing the plaintiffs, he claims that Paramount hand-waved them away exclaiming 'What copyright?' This is deceptive as it implies that Paramount was not aware of any potential infringement on Yonay's article and therefore did not need to acquire a new license. However, this statement contradicts the court's ruling which found that Paramount had no obligation to credit Yonay in the film since it was made independently of the rights conveyed by him. Lastly, Toberoff also claims that any similarities between Top Gun and Ehud Yonay's article are based on unprotected elements such as dialogue presented as real statements made by actual people in the article. This is deceptive as it implies that Paramount did not infringe on any copyright laws when using these dialogues, which contradicts the court's ruling.
The author claims that Paramount has prevailed in a copyright lawsuit brought by Ehud Yonay's heirs. However, this statement is misleading as it implies that there was no dispute between the parties and that Paramount had not infringed on any copyright laws.
The author states that the court found several elements from the film were largely dissimilar from Ehud Yonay's article. However, this statement is misleading as it implies that Paramount had not infringed on any copyright laws when using these similarities.
In a statement made by Marc Toberoff representing the plaintiffs, he claims that Paramount hand-waved them away exclaiming 'What copyright?' This is deceptive as it implies that Paramount was not aware of any potential infringement on Yonay's article and therefore did not need to acquire a new license.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the court found that several elements from the film are largely dissimilar from Ehud Yonay's article. This is not true as the court concluded that any overlapping factual similarities aren't protected by copyright law, and only unprotectable factual similarities were excluded under extrinsic test. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric when stating that Paramount hand-waved Yonay's widow and son exclaiming 'What copyright?' This is not an accurate representation of the situation as it implies that Yonay's family was trying to claim ownership over a work they did not create. The author also uses dichotomous depiction when stating that Top Gun is a real fighter pilot school while the graduates and instructors mentioned in the article are real people (Yogi and Possum). This creates an either/or situation where one cannot exist without the other, which is not true as it implies that Yonay's story was fictional. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric when stating that certain factual elements were unprotected facts or familiar stock scenes. This is not accurate as these elements could be protected by copyright law if they are original and creative works.
The court found that several elements from the film — including plot, theme, setting and dialogue — are “largely dissimilar” from Ehud Yonay's article.
Paramount hand-waved Yonay's widow and son exclaiming 'What copyright?'
Top Gun is a real fighter pilot school while the graduates and instructors mentioned in the article are real people (Yogi and Possum)
Certain factual elements were unprotected facts or familiar stock scenes.
Bias
(85%)
The article discusses a copyright lawsuit brought by the heirs of Ehud Yonay against Paramount for using his story as inspiration for the Top Gun sequel. The court found that several elements from the film were largely dissimilar to Yonay's article and that any overlapping factual similarities weren't protected by copyright law. However, there are examples of language used in both works that could be considered biased.
Paramount (NASDAQ:PARA) recently brought out a win in court that likely saved it a pot of cash and some trouble. However, investors were not happy about the news as shares were down nearly 5.5% in Monday afternoon's trading.
The lawsuit was related to allegations that Top Gun: Maverick cribbed heavily from an article by Ehud Yonay titled 'Top Guns', which focused on a San Diego fighter pilot training school. The case was shut down as copyright law cannot be extended to factual elements like the actual people described in the article or familiar plot elements like pilots being shot down.
Reports suggested that Paramount might be inclined to trade $5 billion worth of its own stock to buy Skydance, which would send $2 billion in cash outright and pile some extra cash into Paramount. However, this news did not seem enough for investors as shares continued their decline.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it implies that Paramount won a lawsuit against someone who believed the film Top Gun: Maverick copied from an article by Ehud Yonay titled 'Top Guns'. However, this is not entirely accurate as the case was shut down due to copyright law not being able to extend to factual elements like people and plot elements. Secondly, it mentions a possible buyout deal between Paramount and Skydance which would send $5 billion worth of its own stock and $2 billion in cash outright. However, this information is speculative as no official announcement has been made yet.
The article implies that Paramount won a lawsuit against someone who believed the film Top Gun: Maverick copied from an article by Ehud Yonay titled 'Top Guns'.
However, this is not entirely accurate as the case was shut down due to copyright law not being able to extend to factual elements like people and plot elements.
Fallacies
(70%)
The article contains two fallacies: an appeal to authority and a false dilemma. The author cites Judge Percy Anderson as the source of information about copyright law without providing any context or evidence for his expertise in this area. Additionally, the article presents a false dilemma by suggesting that Paramount's win in court was either good news or bad news depending on whether it led to a buyout deal. This oversimplifies complex issues and ignores other potential outcomes.
The author cites Judge Percy Anderson as the source of information about copyright law without providing any context or evidence for his expertise in this area.
Bias
(75%)
The article contains examples of both religious and monetary bias. The author uses language that dehumanizes the plaintiffs in the lawsuit by referring to them as 'some believed' which implies they are not credible or trustworthy. Additionally, the author mentions a possible buyout deal with Skydance which could have significant financial implications for Paramount, but does not provide any information on whether this is a good investment opportunity.
The lawsuit in question came about when some believed that the film cribbed heavily from a 1983 article by Ehud Yonay titled
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The article reports on Paramount's lawsuit win against a San Diego fighter pilot training school that claimed copyright infringement over the movie Top Gun: Maverick. The site does not disclose any conflicts of interest related to the topics provided, but it is owned by Skydance, which received $5 billion worth of its own stock and $2 billion in cash from National Amusements. This could indicate a financial tie between the site's owner and the movie industry that may compromise their objectivity. The article also mentions Paramount's acquisition of Skydance for $5 billion, which could suggest a professional affiliation between the two companies.
$2 billion in cash outright to National Amusements
Paramount (NASDAQ:PARA) Plunges after Lawsuit Win
Skydance received $5 billion worth of its own stock and $2 billion in cash from National Amusements
The nearly two-year old copyright infringement, breach of contract, and declaratory relief action by the Israeli-based widow and son of Ehud Yonay against Paramount Pictures has been dismissed.
Judge Percy Anderson ruled that the Article and Sequel are not substantially similar under the extrinsic test.
Accuracy
Ehud Yonay's 1983 magazine article inspired the original Top Gun film that was released in 1986. After the sequel, Top Gun: Maverick, was released in 2022, Yonay's family hit the network with a lawsuit.
The elements of Maverick including plot, theme, setting and dialogue did not overlap with Ehud Yonay's 1983 article according to the judge.
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(95%)
The article contains an example of a false dilemma fallacy. The author presents the situation as if there are only two options: either Paramount is guilty of copyright infringement or it isn't. However, this oversimplifies the complex legal issues involved in copyright law and ignores other possible outcomes.
The nearly two-year old dogfight between Paramount and the family of the writer of the 1983 article that inspired the franchise is over,
Bias
(85%)
The article is biased towards Paramount Pictures and its success in the legal battle against Ehud Yonay's family. The author uses language that dehumanizes the plaintiffs by referring to them as 'widow and son', which may be seen as disrespectful or dismissive of their claims. Additionally, the article portrays Paramount Pictures as a victim in this legal battle, despite being accused of copyright infringement and breach of contract. The author also uses language that downplays the significance of Ehud Yonay's contribution to Top Gun: Maverick by referring to him as 'the writer who inspired the franchise', which may be seen as diminishing his role in creating a successful film series.
,
The article refers to Shosh and Yuval Yonay as 'widow and son'
