Loading
Expert Witness Insights by Area of Expertise
7 min read
Areas of Expertise :
Copyright, Intellectual Property, Entertainment, Civil Litigation, Film And Movie Production
Published Date:
Last Modified Date:
The Top Gun: Maverick copyright case shows how expert testimony and Rule 702 can shape substantial-similarity disputes involving protected expression and real-world subject matter. This article examines the competing experts, the importance of filtering out unprotected facts and ideas, and key lessons for preparing reliable copyright expert testimony.
The Top Gun: Maverick copyright case involved a major commercial film, a decades-old magazine article, and a common copyright problem: when do similarities show copying, and when do they only reflect the same real-world subject?
The plaintiffs, heirs of journalist Ehud Yonay, claimed that Top Gun: Maverick copied original protected expression from Yonay’s 1983 article, Top Guns. The original 1986 Top Gun gave Yonay’s article an onscreen credit that read “Suggested by Ehud Yonay’s article ‘Top Guns’ in California Magazine.” Paramount argued that the sequel used unprotected ideas, real Navy aviation details, and subject matter drawn from the Top Gun program rather than Yonay’s original expression.
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment for Paramount. In January 2026, the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The appellate court agreed that the film was not substantially similar to protected expression in the article and upheld the district court’s expert rulings.
This guide explains why expert testimony mattered, how Rule 702 shaped the analysis, and what attorneys can learn when preparing copyright experts for substantial-similarity disputes.
Ehud Yonay’s Top Guns article described the U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School, widely known as Top Gun. After publication, Yonay assigned Paramount all rights in the article, and the original 1986 Top Gun included an onscreen credit that read “Suggested by Ehud Yonay’s article ‘Top Guns’ in California Magazine.”
After Yonay’s death, his widow and son became owners of the copyright. In 2020, they terminated Yonay’s agreement with Paramount by invoking 17 U.S.C. § 203(a)(3). Paramount released Top Gun: Maverick in 2022, and the Yonays sued for copyright infringement and breach of contract.
The district court granted summary judgment for Paramount, including on the copyright claim. The Ninth Circuit affirmed on January 2, 2026. Although the article and film shared some similarities because both involved the actual Navy fighter-pilot training program, the courts found that shared subject matter was not enough. The plaintiffs still had to show substantial similarity in protected expression.
Expert testimony mattered because the case depended on copyright filtering. The court had to decide whether the alleged similarities involved protected expression or unprotected material, including facts, ideas, familiar themes, and Navy aviation details.
A copyright expert could not simply list similarities and treat every overlap as legally meaningful. A reliable comparison needed to identify the alleged similarities, filter out unprotected material, and then evaluate whether the remaining protected expression was substantially similar.
That step can affect whether a copyright claim survives summary judgment. If an expert comparison blends protected and unprotected material together, the opinion may look detailed but still fail to answer the legal question the court needs to resolve.
Litigation
Screenwriting
Film
Military Aviation
The Top Gun: Maverick copyright case involved a major commercial film, a decades-old magazine article, and a common copyright problem: when do similarities show copying, and when do they only reflect the same real-world subject?
The plaintiffs, heirs of journalist Ehud Yonay, claimed that Top Gun: Maverick copied original protected expression from Yonay’s 1983 article, Top Guns. The original 1986 Top Gun gave Yonay’s article an onscreen credit that read “Suggested by Ehud Yonay’s article ‘Top Guns’ in California Magazine.” Paramount argued that the sequel used unprotected ideas, real Navy aviation details, and subject matter drawn from the Top Gun program rather than Yonay’s original expression.
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment for Paramount. In January 2026, the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The appellate court agreed that the film was not substantially similar to protected expression in the article and upheld the district court’s expert rulings.
This guide explains why expert testimony mattered, how Rule 702 shaped the analysis, and what attorneys can learn when preparing copyright experts for substantial-similarity disputes.
Ehud Yonay’s Top Guns article described the U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School, widely known as Top Gun. After publication, Yonay assigned Paramount all rights in the article, and the original 1986 Top Gun included an onscreen credit that read “Suggested by Ehud Yonay’s article ‘Top Guns’ in California Magazine.”
After Yonay’s death, his widow and son became owners of the copyright. In 2020, they terminated Yonay’s agreement with Paramount by invoking 17 U.S.C. § 203(a)(3). Paramount released Top Gun: Maverick in 2022, and the Yonays sued for copyright infringement and breach of contract.
The district court granted summary judgment for Paramount, including on the copyright claim. The Ninth Circuit affirmed on January 2, 2026. Although the article and film shared some similarities because both involved the actual Navy fighter-pilot training program, the courts found that shared subject matter was not enough. The plaintiffs still had to show substantial similarity in protected expression.
Expert testimony mattered because the case depended on copyright filtering. The court had to decide whether the alleged similarities involved protected expression or unprotected material, including facts, ideas, familiar themes, and Navy aviation details.
A copyright expert could not simply list similarities and treat every overlap as legally meaningful. A reliable comparison needed to identify the alleged similarities, filter out unprotected material, and then evaluate whether the remaining protected expression was substantially similar.
That step can affect whether a copyright claim survives summary judgment. If an expert comparison blends protected and unprotected material together, the opinion may look detailed but still fail to answer the legal question the court needs to resolve.
The plaintiffs offered Henry Bean, a screenwriter and former adjunct film professor, to compare the article and the film. The issue was not whether Bean understood film, writing, or storytelling. The issue was whether his method gave the court a reliable way to separate protected expression from unprotected material.
The district court excluded Bean’s opinion because his analysis did not properly filter out unprotected elements before comparing the works. In practical terms, the court found that his opinion relied on facts, abstract ideas, and familiar stock scenes or themes without adequately separating them from potentially protected expression.
That problem mattered under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Rule 702 requires the proponent to show the court that expert testimony will help the trier of fact, rests on sufficient facts or data, uses reliable principles and methods, and reflects a reliable application of those methods to the facts of the case. Bean’s opinion ran into the first of those requirements. Because it did not properly filter out unprotected material, the court found it would not help the factfinder understand the legal question it needed to answer. For attorneys, the point is direct: strong credentials cannot save an opinion if the expert uses the wrong comparison method.
Paramount offered Andrew Craig, a Commanding Officer in the Navy Reserve and a former Top Gun instructor. Craig helped explain the factual accuracy of the article’s portrayal of the Top Gun program, giving the court factual context for identifying unprotected factual elements.
That distinction mattered because a detail drawn from a real military program is different from a detail created by an author. Craig was not there to tell the court what copyright law protected. That decision belonged to the judge.
His role was to help the court understand the factual setting so the court could identify factual elements that copyright law does not protect. The district court allowed Craig’s testimony, and the Ninth Circuit upheld that decision. His testimony gave the court factual context for its filtering analysis.
This is where many copyright disputes get difficult. Two works can feel similar because they use the same world, topic, or professional setting. But copyright law asks a narrower question: did the later work copy protected expression?
Both Top Guns and Top Gun: Maverick involve elite Navy aviators, fighter-pilot training, aerial flight, and the Top Gun setting. Those similarities may seem important at first glance. But many of them flow naturally from the real Top Gun program and the broader Navy aviation setting.
The courts concluded that the plaintiffs had not shown substantial similarity in protected expression. The film may have shared a general subject with the article, but shared subject matter is not the same as infringement.
Once the court focused on protectable expression and filtered out unprotected material, the plaintiffs’ theory had much less support. That is why the expert analysis mattered.
Credentials are only the starting point. A strong résumé will not save an expert opinion if the expert uses a comparison method that does not match copyright law.
In practice, a copyright comparison chart is stronger when it separates protected expression from facts, ideas, stock elements, scènes à faire, general themes, and real-world details. If the chart blends everything together, it can become vulnerable in a Rule 702 motion.
Attorneys should also vet the expert’s method before disclosure. It is not enough to ask whether the expert can identify similarities. Counsel should ask whether the expert can explain why those similarities involve protected expression.
Before relying on a copyright expert, attorneys should pressure-test the opinion by asking:
The decision also shows why factual-context experts can matter when the alleged overlap comes from real-world subject matter. In the right dispute, a defense expert can help explain whether alleged similarities come from real-world facts, common practices, or the subject matter itself.
Expert admissibility can also affect summary judgment. If a plaintiff’s substantial-similarity theory depends heavily on expert testimony that does not survive Rule 702 review, the claim may lose important support at summary judgment.
For litigators, the point is straightforward: expert analysis in copyright cases must follow the legal framework. Without proper filtering, ordinary similarities can appear more legally important than they really are.
Why was the Top Gun: Maverick copyright case dismissed?
The courts found that the film shared a general Navy aviation subject with Yonay’s article but was not substantially similar to protected expression.
Why was the plaintiffs’ expert excluded?
The plaintiffs’ expert failed to properly filter out unprotected material before comparing the article and the film, which made the opinion unhelpful and inadmissible under Rule 702.
What did Paramount’s expert contribute?
Paramount’s expert helped explain the factual accuracy of the article’s portrayal of the Top Gun program, giving the court useful context for its filtering analysis.
Are facts protected by copyright?
No. Copyright protects original expression, not the underlying facts, ideas, procedures, processes, systems, methods of operation, concepts, principles, discoveries, or general themes.
What is the main litigation takeaway?
Expert testimony in copyright cases must use a reliable comparison method that fits the governing copyright standard. Similarities matter when they involve protected expression, not just facts, ideas, or common subject matter.
The plaintiffs offered Henry Bean, a screenwriter and former adjunct film professor, to compare the article and the film. The issue was not whether Bean understood film, writing, or storytelling. The issue was whether his method gave the court a reliable way to separate protected expression from unprotected material.
The district court excluded Bean’s opinion because his analysis did not properly filter out unprotected elements before comparing the works. In practical terms, the court found that his opinion relied on facts, abstract ideas, and familiar stock scenes or themes without adequately separating them from potentially protected expression.
That problem mattered under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Rule 702 requires the proponent to show the court that expert testimony will help the trier of fact, rests on sufficient facts or data, uses reliable principles and methods, and reflects a reliable application of those methods to the facts of the case. Bean’s opinion ran into the first of those requirements. Because it did not properly filter out unprotected material, the court found it would not help the factfinder understand the legal question it needed to answer. For attorneys, the point is direct: strong credentials cannot save an opinion if the expert uses the wrong comparison method.
Paramount offered Andrew Craig, a Commanding Officer in the Navy Reserve and a former Top Gun instructor. Craig helped explain the factual accuracy of the article’s portrayal of the Top Gun program, giving the court factual context for identifying unprotected factual elements.
That distinction mattered because a detail drawn from a real military program is different from a detail created by an author. Craig was not there to tell the court what copyright law protected. That decision belonged to the judge.
His role was to help the court understand the factual setting so the court could identify factual elements that copyright law does not protect. The district court allowed Craig’s testimony, and the Ninth Circuit upheld that decision. His testimony gave the court factual context for its filtering analysis.
This is where many copyright disputes get difficult. Two works can feel similar because they use the same world, topic, or professional setting. But copyright law asks a narrower question: did the later work copy protected expression?
Both Top Guns and Top Gun: Maverick involve elite Navy aviators, fighter-pilot training, aerial flight, and the Top Gun setting. Those similarities may seem important at first glance. But many of them flow naturally from the real Top Gun program and the broader Navy aviation setting.
The courts concluded that the plaintiffs had not shown substantial similarity in protected expression. The film may have shared a general subject with the article, but shared subject matter is not the same as infringement.
Once the court focused on protectable expression and filtered out unprotected material, the plaintiffs’ theory had much less support. That is why the expert analysis mattered.
Credentials are only the starting point. A strong résumé will not save an expert opinion if the expert uses a comparison method that does not match copyright law.
In practice, a copyright comparison chart is stronger when it separates protected expression from facts, ideas, stock elements, scènes à faire, general themes, and real-world details. If the chart blends everything together, it can become vulnerable in a Rule 702 motion.
Attorneys should also vet the expert’s method before disclosure. It is not enough to ask whether the expert can identify similarities. Counsel should ask whether the expert can explain why those similarities involve protected expression.
Before relying on a copyright expert, attorneys should pressure-test the opinion by asking:
The decision also shows why factual-context experts can matter when the alleged overlap comes from real-world subject matter. In the right dispute, a defense expert can help explain whether alleged similarities come from real-world facts, common practices, or the subject matter itself.
Expert admissibility can also affect summary judgment. If a plaintiff’s substantial-similarity theory depends heavily on expert testimony that does not survive Rule 702 review, the claim may lose important support at summary judgment.
For litigators, the point is straightforward: expert analysis in copyright cases must follow the legal framework. Without proper filtering, ordinary similarities can appear more legally important than they really are.
Why was the Top Gun: Maverick copyright case dismissed?
The courts found that the film shared a general Navy aviation subject with Yonay’s article but was not substantially similar to protected expression.
Why was the plaintiffs’ expert excluded?
The plaintiffs’ expert failed to properly filter out unprotected material before comparing the article and the film, which made the opinion unhelpful and inadmissible under Rule 702.
What did Paramount’s expert contribute?
Paramount’s expert helped explain the factual accuracy of the article’s portrayal of the Top Gun program, giving the court useful context for its filtering analysis.
Are facts protected by copyright?
No. Copyright protects original expression, not the underlying facts, ideas, procedures, processes, systems, methods of operation, concepts, principles, discoveries, or general themes.
What is the main litigation takeaway?
Expert testimony in copyright cases must use a reliable comparison method that fits the governing copyright standard. Similarities matter when they involve protected expression, not just facts, ideas, or common subject matter.
Litigation
Screenwriting
Film
Military Aviation
Expert Witness Insights by Area of Expertise
Expert Witness Insights by Area of Expertise