A Top Gun Sequel, a Miles Davis Tattoo, and the Copyright Rule That Powers the Creator Economy

Two recent court cases -- one about a billion‑dollar Hollywood sequel and one about a Miles Davis tattoo -- revolve around a simple truth.

Every creator borrows.

Filmmakers borrow stories from journalism. Musicians recycle chord progressions. Photographers reinterpret famous faces. Designers remix visual styles that have been floating around culture for decades.

None of this is cheating. It is how creativity actually works.

The creative world runs on a constant exchange of ideas. Stories evolve. Styles travel. Artists influence each other.

But there is one rule quietly preventing the entire system from collapsing into lawsuits.

Copyright protects expression, not ideas.

Two recent court cases illustrate that rule perfectly.

One involves Tom Cruise flying fighter jets in a billion‑dollar blockbuster sequel.

The other involves a tattoo of Miles Davis.

Different industries. Different art forms.

Same legal principle.

The Article That Sparked the Top Gun Franchise

The story of Top Gun did not begin with a screenplay. It began with a magazine article.

In 1983 journalist Ehud Yonay wrote an article for California Magazine titled “Top Guns.” The piece offered readers a rare look inside the Navy’s elite fighter‑pilot training program and the intense competition among its pilots.

Hollywood immediately recognized the cinematic potential.

Paramount bought the rights and released Top Gun in 1986 starring Tom Cruise, aviator sunglasses, and more slow‑motion high fives than anyone expected.

The film became a cultural icon.

More than thirty years later Paramount released Top Gun: Maverick.

The sequel became a massive global hit and generated about $1.5 billion at the box office.

Then the lawyers arrived.

Yonay’s heirs argued that the sequel relied on the same underlying ideas as the original article and therefore infringed the author’s copyright.

The case, Yonay v. Paramount Pictures Corp., was heard in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and later reviewed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Both courts ruled for Paramount.

Why Paramount Won

The key question in the case was simple.

Did Top Gun: Maverick copy the protected parts of Yonay’s article?

Copyright law protects creative expression. It does not protect topics, facts, or general ideas.

Yonay’s article described real Navy pilots and the culture surrounding the TOP GUN training program. Those facts belong to the public domain.

No one gets to own the concept of fighter pilots competing in an elite training school.

The courts focused on Yonay’s specific storytelling choices.

Top Gun: Maverick uses the same high‑altitude world of naval aviation, but it tells a completely different story with different characters, dialogue, and plot.

Sharing a setting is not copyright infringement.

If it were, every movie set in New York would require permission from the first person who ever filmed Times Square.

Because the sequel did not copy Yonay’s creative expression, the lawsuit failed.

The Entire Doctrine in One Sentence

Before we go further, let’s recap the rule that makes copyright lawyers unpopular at dinner parties.

You can own your creative expression.

You cannot own the idea behind it.

Once you understand that sentence, the Top Gun case, the Miles Davis tattoo case, and most of the current AI copyright lawsuits suddenly make a lot more sense.

Okay. Back to the tattoo.

The Miles Davis Tattoo Dispute

The same principle appeared in a very different dispute involving jazz legend Miles Davis.

Photographer Jeffrey Sedlik captured a striking portrait of Davis using dramatic lighting and careful composition. It is the kind of image that seems to play jazz just by looking at it.

Years later celebrity tattoo artist Kat Von D created a tattoo of Miles Davis using the photograph as a reference.

Sedlik sued, arguing that the tattoo copied his photograph.

The case, Sedlik v. Von Drachenberg, was heard in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

The court had to answer a deceptively tricky question.

What parts of a photograph are actually protected by copyright?

What Copyright Protects in a Photograph

A photographer does not own the subject’s face.

They do not own the subject’s identity.

They do not own the fact that Miles Davis had cheekbones sharp enough to cut glass.

Those things belong to reality.

What photographers own are their creative decisions: lighting, framing, camera angle, composition, and mood.

When courts analyze these cases, they filter out the real‑world elements and focus only on the artist’s creative choices.

Then they ask one question.

Did the second work copy those choices?

A Simple Example Everyone Understands

Think about photographs of Albert Einstein.

Dozens of photographers captured images of him during his lifetime.

None of them owns Einstein’s hair, face, or famous expression of cosmic confusion.

Those belong to Einstein.

What each photographer owns is the photograph they created.

One portrait might use dramatic shadows. Another might place Einstein against a bright background. A third might capture him sitting at a desk surrounded by equations.

Each image reflects a different set of creative decisions.

Copyright protects those decisions.

The same rule applies everywhere.

Songwriters can own melodies but not the concept of writing about heartbreak.

Novelists can own the plot of a detective story but not the idea of a detective solving crimes.

Otherwise every mystery writer would need permission from Edgar Allan Poe.

The Legal Thread Connecting Both Cases

At first glance the Top Gun dispute and the Miles Davis tattoo case seem unrelated.

One involves a billion‑dollar movie franchise.

The other involves a tattoo needle.

Yet both decisions rely on the same legal framework.

Courts must separate protected expression from unprotected ideas and facts.

In the Yonay case, the unprotected elements included fighter‑pilot culture and the idea of a film about elite aviators.

In Sedlik, the unprotected elements included Miles Davis himself along with his physical features and pose.

Once those elements were filtered out, the courts examined the artists’ creative contributions.

That filtering process sits at the heart of copyright law.

Three Things These Cases Actually Tell Us

These disputes look narrow. They are actually telling us something much bigger about creativity.

First: inspiration is not infringement. 
Creative industries depend on shared ideas. Fighter pilots, jazz musicians, detectives, superheroes, and startup founders are all fair game.

Second: copyright protection is narrower than most people think.

 People often assume copyright protects the concept behind a work. In reality, the law protects only the specific creative choices used to express that concept.

Third: this same rule is about to shape the future of AI.

 As courts evaluate lawsuits over generative AI, they will ask the same question raised in these cases: did the technology copy protected expression, or did it simply draw from ideas that belong to everyone?

Why This Matters More Than Ever

This distinction is becoming increasingly important as technology accelerates creativity.

AI tools can generate music, images, writing, and film concepts at remarkable speed. Lawsuits are already testing the boundaries of what those systems can legally produce.

Courts evaluating those cases will rely on the same framework used in Top Gun and the Miles Davis tattoo dispute.

They will separate ideas from expression.

The answer will influence how creative technology evolves for decades.

The Technotainment Scorecard

Here is the takeaway.

You can own your creative expression.

You cannot own the idea behind it.

That simple rule quietly powers the entire creative economy.

It is why artists can build on the past without asking permission from it.

And it is why Hollywood will ensure the fighter jets never run out of fuel.