This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Intellectual Property
Copyright Infringement
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Shosh Yonay, Yuval Yonay v. Paramount Pictures Corporation, and Does 1-10

Published: Jul. 19, 2024 | Result Date: Mar. 21, 2024 | Filing Date: Jun. 6, 2022 |

Case number: 2:22-cv-03846-PA-GJS Summary Judgment –  Defense

Judge

Percy Anderson

Court

CD CA


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Marc Toberoff
(Toberoff & Associates PC)

Jaymie R. Parkkinen
(Toberoff & Associates PC)


Defendant

Daniel M. Petrocelli
(O'Melveny & Myers LLP)

Molly M. Lens
(O'Melveny & Myers LLP)


Facts

On April 21, 1983, California Magazine published Ehud Yonay's piece entitled, "Top Guns," which recounted F-14 pilots' and radio intercept officers' experiences as they trained at the Navy's Fighter Weapons School, known as Top Gun. The following month, Yonay assigned his rights to the article to Paramount Pictures. The assignment required Paramount to credit Yonay in certain circumstances, and when the original "Top Gun" movie was released, Yonay received a "suggested by" credit.

Several years later, on January 23, 2018, after Yonay's death, his widow, Shosh, and son, Ehud, sent Paramount a Notice of Termination, terminating Paramount's rights to the article that would be effective January 24, 2020. On May 27, 2022, Paramount released a sequel to the original "Top Gun" film without crediting Yonay, and the following month, his widow and son sued Paramount for breach of contract, declaratory relief, and copyright infringement.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that defendant breached the assignment of rights agreement by not crediting Yonay in the sequel; infringed plaintiffs' copyright by including substantially similar "key elements" of the article in the sequel; and a declaration that the sequel was derivative of the article with defendant having no right to make or distribute the sequel.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant argued that as the plot, sequence of events, and pacing were largely dissimilar, there were no substantial similarities that would provide copyright protection between the article and sequel. As for any similar elements, those were based on unprotected elements--facts or familiar stock scenes not entitled to copyright protection.

Result

The court agreed with defendant and granted its motion for summary judgment.


#143137

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390