Paramount failed in its attempt Top Gun: Maverick copyright lawsuit.
“Defendant’s primary argument in its motion to dismiss is that plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged in their FAC that the article and successor are ‘substantially similar,'” U.S. District Judge Percy Anderson wrote in a court order released Thursday is. “The court disagrees”
“For all of the foregoing reasons, the court denies the motion to dismiss,” the closed order continued (read it here). “The court concludes that the Federal Administrative Court contains sufficiently substantiated facts to formulate viable claims for copyright infringement, breach of contract, and damages as determined.”
Or as Tom Cruise did in the high-flying blockbuster Mach 10? Let’s give them Mach 10!”
“Although the court declined to dismiss the case at this very early stage of the proceedings, we will continue to vigorously defend this lawsuit and are confident that discovery will confirm that the allegations are without merit,” a spokesperson said. of Paramount Pictures said this afternoon. deadline.
The lawsuit, first filed in June and amended in August with an additional infringement complaint, by the Israeli widow and son of the author of a 1983 article that inspired the original 1986 article boss Flick says the 2022 sequel violates cancellation rights – in other words, you shouldn’t have made this “derivative” film without our permission.
in the California In the May 1983 issue of the magazine, Ehud Yonay wrote “Top Guns” about the pilots and program “in an office on the second floor on the east side of Hangar One in Miramar.” The piece was quickly selected and turned into the now classic Reagan-era photograph; Yonay was even quoted in the credits of the first one boss. Cut to more than 35 years later and a long-awaited sequel is finally on the way, but Marc Toberoff and Alex Kozinski’s Shosh Yonay and Yuval Yonay are demanding the rights restored to them in January 2020 under copyright laws.
Paramount communicated with the Yonays before the cases went to court, claiming: Independent thinking person was already fairly complete before the end date of January 24, 2020. The studio also insisted that the film falls under the “prior derivative works exception” of the law.
Hits federal court shortly after earning $1.5 billion Tom Gun: Outsider Published in late May, the lawsuit seeks substantial but unspecified monetary damages. The Yonays also want an injunction halting the screenings and distribution of the film, which is a window display at the intersection.
No wonder Paramount didn’t have it this summer Independent thinking person reached the box office stratosphere.
“If the court examines the article and… Independent thinking personContrary to the irrelevant and misleading comparison of the works by the plaintiffs, this is clear in law Independent thinking person does not borrow any of the article’s trademarked terms,” the studio said in its motion to dismiss the Aug. 26 filing.
Unfortunately for Paramount, Anderson reviewed the footage. Paramount now has until November 28 to officially respond to the first complaint.
Writer: Dominic Patten
Source: Deadline
